Best B&W films with no filter?

[George Mann]

So perhaps just continue using a yellow filter? Seems like the most straightforward solution.

I just ordered one.

 

[MattKing]

Does that mean that blue skies will be rendered lighter rather than than darker? That would help me as blue skies in northern New Mexico where I live are often rendered very dark, even w/o a filter.

Actually the other way around - the blue skies will be slightly darker.
I expect that there is less UV sensitivity too - and that is really important if you are trying to keep the skies dark.
If you want to lighten skies, a blue filter may help.

 

[DREW WILEY]

TMax 100 has an additional UV blocker on the base itself, TMax 400 does not. Otherwise, their spectral sensitivity distribution is similar. I suspect there is some technical application behind that distinction. It doesn't make any difference in routine outdoor shooting, but it might be a factor if someone is working with a print medium requiring UV exposure.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

TMX = T-Max 100. TMY = T-Max 400. TXP = Tri-X professional (320). I don't know the other designations offhand.

Isn't TriX 400? OR do you mean you shoot it at 320?

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Isn't TriX 400? OR do you mean you shoot it at 320?

Different types of Tri X exist, TXP 320 and TX 400. I don't shoot either, so I'll stop here.

 

[eddie]

In my other thread, I mentioned that I shoot the cheapest b&w films available.

Isn't that a false economy? If a roll of $6.00 film gets you results you like, and a $3.00 roll doesn't, isn't the more expensive roll a better value?

 

[George Mann]

Isn't that a false economy? If a roll of $6.00 film gets you results you like, and a $3.00 roll doesn't, isn't the more expensive roll a better value?

Yes. But no current b&w film that I have seen pleases me like Pan-X. If only there were a true replacement.

CMSII is good, but expensive, difficult to develop and unobtainable at the moment.

 

[DF]

Give Kentmere 100 a try,
but more important, what is it you're photographing - and at what time of the day > angle/intensity of the sun?
Photography talk sometimes becomes too technical - it's easy to get all mired down in "filters" "contrast gradient" "UV blocker base"
when what you're really missing out on is getting out > out-of-doors, into the field, seeing what's there... you then may or may not need all these
fixes.

 

[eli griggs]

If you're shooting people, a yellow-green filter may give you a more pleasing effect with women; green for men with bringing out the 'roughness' of their complexion.

Also, a good UV or Haze filter, warm or cool, will give a cleaner, contrast than just letting it blur the subject or, in many cases, landor city scapes.

Get a handle on your film, one type at a time, light measurements/placment, even in Sunny 11, and the nature of your developer-paper-developer(-toner) if you want to take control of your images, and actually shoot a lot of film, with your filters, and a grey card at the first couple of frames, so you have known caparisons in the studio, field and darkroom enlarger.

IMO.

 

[NB23]

Guys, please get the facts straight about a film being “more sensitive to blue” and how it relates to the sky. For now there is a contradiction in this concept and it makes us look like cheap used cars salesmen.

i would rather explain it via “sensitivity to red”. The more a film is sensitive to red, the less desirable look it has, generally speaking.
Makes white people look bad. However, it is very good for black people. Therefore, if you shoot portraits, the rule of thumb would be to use FOMA 400 for black people, and TMX, TMY and FP4 for white people.

In kodak terms, X,Y and Z means 100,400 and 3200. From closest to furthest.
TMX100, TMY400, TMZ3200.

To answer the OP, I would go with these two amazing films: TMX or FP4.
Tmx in 35mm is smooth with an amazing look, medium format territory, with the best spectral sensitivity. FP4 has a sparkle that I do not find in other films. A sparkle in the contrast that amazes me every time.

if looking for a 400 film, then TMY is your only choice. Amazing is the only word that comes to me. Spectral sensitivity is amazing. There is a richness of tones that I did not find with any other film of that speed. It is not that the other films are bad, it’s just that Kodak came up with the perfect product.

I know all this is very subjective but this is my conclusion after having spent an insane amount of time printing through a huge backlog of all kinds of films.

 

[StepheKoontz]

I agree with the suggestion on trying FP-4. It's the only film I buy in bulk load form, I like it that much! I still use a light yellow filter most of the time, mainly to lower the speed a bit to be able to use my lenses more opened up. I can remove the filter in the shade/when I need more speed in light that is more blue.

 

[BMbikerider]

TMX = T-Max 100. TMY = T-Max 400. TXP = Tri-X professional (320). I don't know the other designations offhand.

Pan-X or to give it the proper name Panatomic X was discontinued many years ago about the same time as Plus-X. I used a fair bit of Plus X but never Pan-x. I preferred Ilford Pan F about 1/3rd of a stop faster and finer grain.

As for the filter question. I only very rarely use a filter (except a simple UV) and depend on multigrade filtration to render the clouds more obvious.

 

[George Mann]

I like FP4. I don't like its grain. It also is a bit more sensitive to red (yellow-green filter?).

Kentmere Pan is a similar looking film with less apparent grain.

I don't like T-Max do to its poor highlight retention.

 

[George Mann]

I preferred Ilford Pan F about 1/3rd of a stop faster and finer grain.

A good film for people who like a lot of contrast.

 

[takilmaboxer]

I would go with Tmax 100. It is deliberately less sensitive in the blue and thus gives a more neutral rendition. It is like using a light yellow filter on a film like Foma 100 ( which I love).
As far as highlight retention, that is a function of development time. Tmax 100 has a long straight curve unless you over develop, in which case the highlight contrast is higher than the mid-tones. The highlight detail is still there, just really hard to print. You must be meticulous in your development technique with this film. Time, temperature and agitation must be carefully controlled. The resulys can be spectacular.

 

[pentaxuser]

Strange, I am of exactly the opposite opinion. Fomapan, due to its higher blue sensitivity, predictably gives me absolutely white, useless skies.

Well we now have two diametrically opposite conclusions on Fomapan. Is there a comparison of spectral sensitivities that can establish beyond where Fomapan films sit in the blue sector compared with say a few others such as HP5+ or perhaps more pertinently TMax

I found a set of curves for a large range of films on a chart where it appeared that Fomapan had what appeared to be a lower sensitivity to blue than all of the others. Lower sensitivity indicates that blue will appear darker, doesn't it, as Richard Gould asserts? However there were so many different coloured curves( one for each of about 7 films) that it was difficult to distinguish

The other problem with curves is whether each curve is set up in the same way to ensure that direct comparisons are possible

So can we put to bed Fomapan's blue sensitivity in terms of its ranked position v other films?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

Too many misconceptions and contradictions flying around... at least to me. I would completely ignore the blue and I would concentrate on the red, as a start. This is what distinguishes all films: their sensitivity to red. And red is opposed to blue, so this explains that.

Well, that’s how I rate my films.

 

[NB23]

Yes! A perfectly well developed tmax100 film, in order to give spectacular prints, always looks a bit thin/underdeveloped to the naked eye.

I would go with Tmax 100. It is deliberately less sensitive in the blue and thus gives a more neutral rendition. It is like using a light yellow filter on a film like Foma 100 ( which I love).
As far as highlight retention, that is a function of development time. Tmax 100 has a long straight curve unless you over develop, in which case the highlight contrast is higher than the mid-tones. The highlight detail is still there, just really hard to print. You must be meticulous in your development technique with this film. Time, temperature and agitation must be carefully controlled. The resulys can be spectacular.

 

[pentaxuser]

I would completely ignore the blue and I would concentrate on the red, as a start. This is what distinguishes all films: their sensitivity to red. And red is opposed to blue, so this explains that.

Well, that’s how I rate my films.

So there is a correlation between sensitivity to red and sensitivity to blue such that all films more sensitive to red will be less sensitive to blue and by definition render blue skies darker even without a filter? In effect the red sensitivity trumps the blue sensitivity? Does this dominance of red sensitivity mean that even is film A is less sensitive to blue than film B then as long as film B is more sensitive to red this will outweigh the effect on the darkening effect on blue skies of film A?

Thanks

 

[George Mann]

Where is Photo Engineer when we need him?!

 

[NB23]

Blue skies is tricky because it’s not a matter of color per se.
A polarizing filter doesn’t act on the color blue. It acts on all the colors. And yet, it renders blue darker, by suppressing the UV reflections in the particles floating in the air.

If we take the Blue sky out of the equation but talk about a blue shirt instead, then yes, the lighter the red, the darker the blue.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Where is Photo Engineer when we need him?!

In our hearts and minds.

 

[Vaughn]

I look at it as color filters do not affect contrast. They change the relative amount of the different frequencies of light that can hit the film. This will increase or decrease contrast based on the film's response to different wavelengths and the colors in the scene in front of the camera. Additional contrast controls can be used (film type, developer type, exposure and development).

 

[NB23]

Regarding film types, aside from a few relatively minor exceptions this is mostly splitting hairs. No two subjects/scenes, times of day etc. have the same lighting, colours, and colour saturation, so it really is best to have a few standard filters in your arsenal - in addition to light green which is often overlooked. This will give you the flexibility to more or less make any film do whatever you want under whatever circumstances.

yes and no... there is no blue filter blue enough that will change Fomapan 400’s nature. All it will do is muddy the whole scene while in theory it shouldn’t.

Picking the right film is key. Using filters over the chosen film will fine-tune the film, not the scene.

Best example I can give is this one: i have 2 boys. One is a blue eyed blond and the other is brown haired with brown eyes. While just about any film makes the brown haired boy look equally good, FP4 makes the blonde one look like an angel. And there is simply no filter that can alter HP5 enough so it matches what FP4 does to his lips, eyes, hair and skin. There is no substitute.

 

[MattKing]

TMX = T-Max 100. TMY = T-Max 400. TXP = Tri-X professional (320). I don't know the other designations offhand.

TMZ = TMax 3200.
T-Max 100 and, in particular, T-Max 400 have more ability to retain highlights than most other films - but you have to approach darkroom printing or scanning and post-processing them in a way that takes advantage of that.