Best B & White film to learn on?

[photopriscilla]

Hello experts! I would love anyone's thoughts on the best B & W film to learn on? Should it be the cheapest? Thoughts?

Thanks in advance?

 

[RobC]

doesn't really matter but you will invest a lot of time into the process of learning to develop and print film so it makes sense to start out with one you will likely end up using anyway.
Some people are always cost concious so go for the cheapest they can find and others don't care about cost.
Film is cheap. Most people don't don't use much film at all. Maybe less than a roll a week or a roll every two weeks. So when you consider that your time is far more valuable it makes sense to use the film you want and not buy film just becasue its cheap.
The main considerations then are film speed. Slow films have fine grain. Slow being 100 speed or less. Fast films have larger grain and are 400 speed and up.
For hand held work 100 speed is fine if you use wider apertures but if you are looking for maximum depth of field then 400 speed film is usually required for hand held work.
If using a tripod then any speed film is good.

Persoanlly I use Ilford films becasue they are good quality and easy to obtain in the UK. Kodak and other makes are probably just as good.
HP5(ISO400) more grain which is sometimes a good thing as it creates atmosphere/mood in an image, Delta(100) very fine grain, Delta(400)more grain but not as much as HP5, FP4(125)fine grain. Kodak have equivalents(I think).

 

[FujiLove]

Agree with all that Rob said. And I'd add that you are better off sticking to one film and developer combination to start with. Shoot it to death until you know it inside out. Classic combinations would be TriX and HC110, HP5 and DD-X etc. I wouldn't bother trying to shoot something cheap. When you add up the cost of processing, chemicals, paper, travel costs, your time etc. the cost of the roll of film is virtually irrelevant.

 

[RobC]

I would add that Ilford ID11 or Kodak D76 , which are more or less identical developers are very good and fairly cheap developers to start out with. Not the finest grain developers but reliable and easy to use.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

doesn't really matter but you will invest a lot of time into the process of learning to develop and print film so it makes sense to start out with one you will likely end up using anyway.
Some people are always cost conscious so go for the cheapest they can find and others don't care about cost.
Film is cheap. Most people don't don't use much film at all. Maybe less than a roll a week or a roll every two weeks. So when you consider that your time is far more valuable it makes sense to use the film you want and not buy film just because its cheap.
The main considerations then are film speed. Slow films have fine grain. Slow being 100 speed or less. Fast films have larger grain and are 400 speed and up.
For hand held work 100 speed is fine if you use wider apertures but if you are looking for maximum depth of field then 400 speed film is usually required for hand held work.
If using a tripod then any speed film is good.

Rob's advice is excellent, as usual. I might modify and augment some of it just a bit, however. I spent a bit of time reading up on film processing before developing my first roll. It came out just fine. Sure, there are lots of refinements one can do later, but if you follow the manufacturer's processing recommendations as to procedure and time, you'll probably get good results t0o. And, if you use a scrap roll to learn reel loading, dry-run developing with water instead of chemicals, etc. before you really process a roll, your chances are even better. Printing, now that's another can of worms, but reading everything you can get your hands on first will really straighten out the learning curve.

Do decide on a film (speed vs. grain) that you likely be using and stick to it. Standard developers like the ones mentioned already are "standard" for a reason. They give consistently good results. Do think about powdered vs. liquid concentrate for developer. If you're not very high volume, a liquid concentrate, like HC-110 that lasts forever, may be a better choice.

One last observation about film speed when choosing your film. Yes, you can use slow film on a tripod and not worry about slow shutter speeds causing camera shake. However, if subject motion is a factor and you're not using flash, you might want a faster film.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Since you are in the US I would suggest Kodak Tri-X. It is described by Kodak as a fine grain film. (Yes, look at the RMS Granularity rating). It is forgiving and has a wide latitude. Pair it with HC-110 or D-76 and you have an unbeatable combination.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If you want something that just works, Ilford HP5+ in Ilford ID-11 or Kodak D-76 at 1+1. Kodak Tri-X in same. Ilfotech HC or Kodak HC-110 are excellent but subtly different in what they do. Delta 100 is good if you want finer grain in a reasonably well behaved film. Read the manufacturer's recommended times & data sheets. In time, you may find yourself needing to adjust exposure & process times to get your optimal negative.

Don't feel you have to 'learn' any one film - try the ones that appeal to you & see if they work/ can be made to work for your process.

Grain is really not an issue with most films today - if you want less, just go up in format.

Don't sweat the details, don't be cheap, & have fun!

 

[rpavich]

The short answer is: just pick one.
But..(and this is a big one) what the previous posters said is true, you will spend a lot of time "dialing in" a film/developer/shooting style combination so it makes sense to at least try and buy something that you will use for the long run.

If you do, then the advice to stick with one film/one developer combination is also very important.

I'm at that stage now. I've been shooting about 6 months or so and only in the last week or two, understood enough of the process to settle on how to shoot and develop Kentmere 400. (the cheapest B&W there is) and now I'm realizing that I may want to shoot HP5 or even Tri-X because after the dust settled, the cost was the least important factor to me. (I had thought it was the most important when I started this journey)
So...my advice?
Same as above posts.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Learn what and which format?
If to learn in general and on 135 I would suggest HP5+. Easy to develop, predictable and forgiving with exposure. Cost normal price comparing to overpriced Kodak. Could be pulled at 200 or pushed to 3200 and it is printable at these speeds.

 

[jeffreythree]

I liked starting on the cheaper films, Kentmere and house brands like Arista. It is not junk just because it is cheaper, but it does not sting as much to mess up a cheap roll or using it for a bunch of test shots. I liked Kentmere 100 enough that I never stopped using it.

 

[Wallendo]

I started with 100 feet of Arista EDU Ultra 100 (Fomapan 100) and Kodak D-76 1+1, an inexpensive but reliable combination. I have since moved on as HC-110 fits my workflow better. I still shoot Arista EDU in 120 frequently, but its very weak antihalation in its 35mm form was annoying.

Film processing is actually quite easy if you are just looking for "good enough" results. As a result, I would try a few rolls of different films to see which works best for you, and then stick with that film during the rest of the learning curve. One thing I have noticed is that small environmental changes can affect what works best. After a move a few years ago, I noticed that the tap water in my new house was too warm to use my existing temperature regulation routine, and so I switched from D-76 to HC-110 (actually I started with L110 and recently moved to the real thing). I recently moved from the coastal plain to the mountains and found that my beloved TX400 now curls uncontrollably - in the past I thought people complaining about Tri-X curl were just being nit-picky. It may be best to sort these issues out before you commit.

If I had to give a specific recommendation, I would go with Kentmere 100 and D76 (or ID11) 1+1.

 

[RobC]

Oh, and its important to understand that is no such thing as "Best" in photography. Every choice you make in photography is a compromise in one or more areas which may have been desirable. So there is no such as best camera or best lens or best film. There are always a choice of cameras or lenses or films which will do the job perfectly well. Some may have characteristics which you prefer on a personal and subjective basis which others would not like and would therefore choose another camera or lens or film. So whats "best" for them may not be "best" for you. That is why you will sometimes not get a straight answer but most of the time people will just say that whatever they happen to use is the best when in reality it may not be. But then again it might be.

 

[4season]

If you want someone else to deal with processing the film, try Ilford XP2, which is a C41-process black and white film, so it can be processed in the same machine that handles your color negative film.

 

[RobC]

If you want someone else to deal with processing the film, try Ilford XP2, which is a C41-process black and white film, so it can be processed in the same machine that handles your color negative film.

scans well too... Ooooops I used a satanic word.

 

[Dali]

Tri-X + D-76 as standard combo. Once you master it, you adjust (different film or developer) according to your tastes.

 

[pdeeh]

Film processing is actually quite easy if you are just looking for "good enough" results.

It's also easy if you want excellent results.

In fact, it's just easy, whichever way you look at it

 

[RobC]

anything and everything is easy if you know how. When you don't know how it may seem daunting but its really not difficult and is actually quite simple.

 

[Sirius Glass]

doesn't really matter but you will invest a lot of time into the process of learning to develop and print film so it makes sense to start out with one you will likely end up using anyway.
Some people are always cost concious so go for the cheapest they can find and others don't care about cost.
Film is cheap. Most people don't don't use much film at all. Maybe less than a roll a week or a roll every two weeks. So when you consider that your time is far more valuable it makes sense to use the film you want and not buy film just becasue its cheap.
The main considerations then are film speed. Slow films have fine grain. Slow being 100 speed or less. Fast films have larger grain and are 400 speed and up.
For hand held work 100 speed is fine if you use wider apertures but if you are looking for maximum depth of field then 400 speed film is usually required for hand held work.
If using a tripod then any speed film is good.

Persoanlly I use Ilford films becasue they are good quality and easy to obtain in the UK. Kodak and other makes are probably just as good.
HP5(ISO400) more grain which is sometimes a good thing as it creates atmosphere/mood in an image, Delta(100) very fine grain, Delta(400)more grain but not as much as HP5, FP4(125)fine grain. Kodak have equivalents(I think).

+1

Since you are in the US I would suggest Kodak Tri-X. It is described by Kodak as a fine grain film. (Yes, look at the RMS Granularity rating). It is forgiving and has a wide latitude. Pair it with HC-110 or D-76 and you have an unbeatable combination.

+1

 

[Kirks518]

OP - Very nice work on your website!

As for the film question, I have nothing to add to what has already been said, but... Based on the level of work you do, I would pick any of the better films (I like Fuji Neopan), and learn it well. Whether or not you plan on doing your own processing will matter as well (control over the final product).

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Try a few and see which one you like for the types of photography you do.

Initially, I went with Tri-X because I liked nighttime available light photography. I liked the contrast and gritty look of it (1970's). In daylight, I didn't mind using higher shutter speeds and smaller apertures.

 

[Bill Burk]

I work for Kodak so I'll recommend Tri-X for you.

Though TMAX 400 is my favorite, you and your wedding customers may prefer the classic look of Tri-X. Occasionally, you'll need the long toe which I understand is useful for portraiture... You will need the 400 speed, so don't choose a slower film. If you find you want finer grain, try TMAX 400 next before trying a slower speed film.

If you select a black and white film with speed of 400, I would recommend shooting it at EI 250 when it works for you. This will give additional shadow detail that may be useful when printing.

When the situation requires you to shoot it at 400, go ahead. That's its real speed.

If you develop yourself, I recommend D-76 1:1 it's a reliable developer, I use it almost always (I experiment from time to time with other developers but D-76 1:1 is my standard).

 

[NickLimegrove]

Try a few

Isn't that the same as advising someone who has never driven a car before to »try a few cars« before choosing the one car to learn on?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Isn't that the same as advising someone who has never driven a car before to »try a few cars« before choosing the one car to learn on?

That's not a good analogy. If the OP had never used a camera before and was unsure of how the aperture and shutter speed affected the image, then the analogy would be more accurate.

It seemed to me that the OP already has significant experience (*). Given that, it's not a great effort to try a few rolls of FP-4, a few of Tri-X, or whatever, and determine which might be more appropriate.

--
(*) she states in this thread that she's a wedding photographer:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[NickLimegrove]

significant experience

okay, I wasn't aware of that.

Still my advice would be to pick one common, readily available, well-documented film, and stick with it until you reach its limits.

The thing is, I've never driven a car (and, as a passionate cyclist and happy public transport user never had a significant desire to learn how to) -- so, as different as they might be, to me any car seems as good or bad a car to learn on as any other.

If I had never worked in DIY B&W before -- would I be able to notice the differences between a TriX and a HP5? Would I be able, at the very beginning of my learning curve, to identify those differences that will make a difference to me one day when I'm further up the curve? Would I, with no prior experience in B&W, even know what to look for in those films? I doubt it...

 

[ME Super]

Personally, I'd grab a roll each of a couple different types of film, and pick a developer (I'd probably use something like HC110 which is liquid, lasts a long time, and can be mixed up as-needed). Shoot the film you bought, develop according to manufacturer's recommendations in the developer chosen, and then evaluate which one I personally like best. Then I'd buy several rolls of the kind I liked best and go from there.

So if you're looking at HP5+ and Tri-X, get a roll of each and go for it. Nobody but you can tell you what you're going to like. This is why so many people say to do film tests - so you can find out what works for you. Personally, I like the HP5+ and the Rollei IR400S. Delta 3200 is amazingly fast, but in 35mm has more grain than I would like, so I'd be more likely to grab HP5+. If grain isn't your thing, then go for either a slower film than HP5+ or Tri-X, or try the TMax/Delta films. Any Ilford or Kodak B&W film is good, you just have to figure out which one you like for your typical subjects, and go for it!