Controlling contrast in B&W film

Milpool · May 23, 2025

GregY said:
I think an educated discussion could differentiate between lighting conditions and the inherent characteristics of different films....

There are a lot of red herrings though, so things tend to get very muddled and/or needlessly complicated.

A few minutes of basic sensitometry and a look at the characteristic curves of the films is plenty to prove that while there are some subtleties with respect to the densities of extreme highlight exposures, all current general purpose medium and high speed films easily reproduce 10+ stops when developed to a normal gradient, and at least in the case of Kodak, Harman, (Fuji) this is at the stated ISO speed (after all, emulsion speed includes a contrast parameter). They just aren't high contrast films by definition.

Unfortunately people sometimes take the position that an online review or video inherently has more "real world" utility than the manufacturer's documentation. Actually while we're at it there are also cases of manufacturer marketing blurbs potentially causing confusion, which is not great either. The Pan F thing you pointed out upthread is an example. Maybe relative to say FP4/FP5 Pan F can kind of be considered higher contrast since it has a narrower exposure range, but it's still wide enough that calling it "high contrast" is pretty silly. I don't think the Pan F document describes it in that way.

GregY · May 23, 2025

Milpool said:
There are a lot of red herrings though, so things tend to get very muddled and/or needlessly complicated.

A few minutes of basic sensitometry and a look at the characteristic curves of the films is plenty to prove that while there are some subtleties with respect to the densities of extreme highlight exposures, all current general purpose medium and high speed films easily reproduce 10+ stops when developed to a normal gradient, and at least in the case of Kodak, Harman, (Fuji) this is at the stated ISO speed (after all, emulsion speed includes a contrast parameter). They just aren't high contrast films by definition.

Unfortunately people sometimes take the position that an online review or video inherently has more "real world" utility than the manufacturer's documentation. Actually while we're at it there are also cases of manufacturer marketing blurbs potentially causing confusion, which is not great either. The Pan F thing you pointed out upthread is an example. Maybe relative to say FP4/FP5 Pan F can kind of be considered higher contrast since it has a narrower exposure range, but it's still wide enough that calling it "high contrast" is pretty silly. I don't think the Pan F document describes it in that way.

I wasn't really thinking of casual comments on forums or by youtube influencers, but rather discussions by photographers who have considerable experience with film &. who process their own film. Pan F isn't a film i'd choose for working in the midday sun in New Mexico for example.
& BTW....Never 51.

GregY · May 23, 2025

Milpool said:
There are a lot of red herrings though, so things tend to get very muddled and/or needlessly complicated.
.......

Unfortunately people sometimes take the position that an online review or video inherently has more "real world" utility than the manufacturer's documentation. Actually while we're at it there are also cases of manufacturer marketing blurbs potentially causing confusion, which is not great either. The Pan F thing you pointed out upthread is an example. Maybe relative to say FP4/FP5 Pan F can kind of be considered higher contrast since it has a narrower exposure range, but it's still wide enough that calling it "high contrast" is pretty silly. I don't think the Pan F document describes it in that way.

Right off the Harman website verbatim"
"35mm, ISO 50, high contrast, super sharp black & white film with very fine grain. Ideal for studio photography and bright, natural light"

Let us know when you hear back from them about their silly description....

koraks · May 23, 2025

We've all read that I'm sure. Just as we've all read the mpg specs of the cars we drive and guarantees of total satisfaction that came with the kitchen aid.

GregY · May 23, 2025

koraks said:
We've all read that I'm sure. Just as we've all read the mpg specs of the cars we drive and guarantees of total satisfaction that came with the kitchen aid.

On forums like these for example, people do tend to go beyond straight nerdism in into the deconstruction/personal interpretation of commonly used language. "There's no such thing as contrast".... "It's film..not film stock.".....

Milpool · May 23, 2025

GregY said:
Right off the Harman website verbatim"
"35mm, ISO 50, high contrast, super sharp black & white film with very fine grain. Ideal for studio photography and bright, natural light"

Let us know when you hear back from them about their silly description....

Yes it’s there in the description - when you pointed it out I had a look because I found it a little surprising (I don’t recall seeing Ilford/Harman call it a high contrast film in the more distant past so maybe this is relatively new wording). But what I meant is that it’s in the shorthand description, not in the Pan F document which reads more like how I remember it.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1905/product/699/

dcy · May 23, 2025

GregY said:
Pan F isn't a film i'd choose for working in the midday sun in New Mexico for example.

Wait... why not?

I actually live in New Mexico and I mainly shoot outdoors when I'm on a hike or whatnot. I'm looking at lower ISO films because most days are quite sunny. --- from the context of the discussion, I take it that the film is going to have trouble with harsh sunlight / dynamic range? --- I haven't bought any Pan F yet. I was planning to look up reviews about it.

GregY · May 23, 2025

Milpool said:
Yes it’s there in the description - when you pointed it out I had a look because I found it a little surprising (I don’t recall seeing Ilford/Harman call it a high contrast film in the more distant past so maybe this is relatively new wording). But what I meant is that it’s in the shorthand description, not in the Pan F document which reads more like how I remember it.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1905/product/699/

Milpool, the point i was trying to make (perhaps unsuccessfully) is that films are different, have different characteristics, respond to different developers &/or developing schemes. Terms like tonality, tonality range, contrast, are common words used in conversation about films, prints & negatives. How can we have meaningful discussions/conversation about film similarities/differences/choices/applications if we limit or deny the value of certain terms?
If we take slow speed films for example. Efke,Agfapan 25 & Pan F have different characteristics and produce different results.

Milpool · May 23, 2025

GregY said:
Milpool, the point i was trying to make (perhaps unsuccessfully) is that films are different, have different characteristics, respond to different developers &/or developing schemes. Terms like tonality, tonality range, contrast, are common words used in conversation about films, prints & negatives. How can we have meaningful discussions/conversation about film similarities/differences/choices/applications if we limit or deny the value of certain terms?
If we take slow speed films for example. Efke,Agfapan 25 & Pan F have different characteristics and produce different results.

I agree. Films certainly aren’t all the same. Different image structure, response to processing, different curve shapes (although with a few exceptions they mostly aren’t all that different except at extreme exposure levels), spectral sensitivity, reciprocity behaviour…

In this particular thread I was just referring to what it means for a film to be characterized as high contrast. That can be defined from a sensitometry / tone reproduction perspective.

Points taken. I suspect OP has left the thread behind anyway so I’ll yield.

Paul Howell · May 23, 2025

I live in Arizona, the low desert, I keep 3 films in my bag, a high speed film, in my case Tmax 400 when traveling, Foma 400 for walk around, midspeed film for general use, Tmax 100 for travel and Foma 100 for walk around, my Tripod film has changed over time, at one it was Pantomic X, a Kodak film no longer being made, then a ISO 25 film from EKFE no longer being made, now it is PanF. I have a few rolls of Tmax 3200 for verty low light. Tmax 100 has highest resloution at 200LPM, finest grain, finer than PanX which is why Kodak stopped making it along with Plux X. It has higher inheranint contrast then Tmax 400 or TriX, for that matter a bit higher than Foma 100. Although the contrast or tone is largley baked into a film it can be massagged by use of low or hight contrast developer.

Shooting in the desert, one would expect high contrast, but I've that it is bright but often low contast, lots of reflected light, but when there are shadows the shadows go very dark. With Tmax 100 I generally use a general propose developer like D76, HC 110, in very flat lighting I have used Edwal 12, Acufine or DK50. With Foma I use Diafine as I can shoot box speed and get a printable highlight in a high contast scene. There are so many developers that can move a films characteristic curve it is easy to get bogged down.

Yezishu · May 23, 2025

dcy said:
Wait... why not?

I actually live in New Mexico and I mainly shoot outdoors when I'm on a hike or whatnot. I'm looking at lower ISO films because most days are quite sunny. --- from the context of the discussion, I take it that the film is going to have trouble with harsh sunlight / dynamic range? --- I haven't bought any Pan F yet. I was planning to look up reviews about it.

Most film should be fine here. I understand your concern, as the Pentax 17 has a shutter speed of only 1/350, which leaves little room for aperture adjustment if the film iso is too high.

However, There are many methods that can work. You could simply attach an ND filter. Professional SLRs, such as the Pentax K1000, feature a 1/1000 second shutter speed and an F22 lens. Many film like XP2 Super or PORTRA 160 allow for overexposure 2~3 stops. Adjust the developer and development time. Experienced scanning expert. Film has some impact here, but not decisive.

GregY · May 23, 2025

dcy said:
Wait... why not?

I actually live in New Mexico and I mainly shoot outdoors when I'm on a hike or whatnot. I'm looking at lower ISO films because most days are quite sunny. --- from the context of the discussion, I take it that the film is going to have trouble with harsh sunlight / dynamic range? --- I haven't bought any Pan F yet. I was planning to look up reviews about it.

D, do you use any filtration? I spent decades using slow (then standard) films like Kodachrome. Although i don't use filters for portraits, I do for landscapes.....so if i'm losing a stop (yellow), 1.5 stops (green) or as much as 2 stops (orange)....then i want a high enough shutter speed that i don't necessarily have to use a tripod.
Personally i use (nominal) 100 iso films a lot because they offer a balance of fine grain & speed for hand holding. I love FP4+, but when I choose TMax100 (or Delta 100) for 35mm work.... it's for their smoothness & ability to show detail. I might choose iso 25/50 if i'm using a tripod.....but TMax/Delta 100 are so fine grained i rarely do.
BTW here's an older thread about Pan F.... worth reading others' experiences with it.

Ilford Pan F: using it to best advantage

I have never had very good results with Pan F or at least I have never had results that I found pleasing. I first shot Pan F about 30 years ago, decided I didn't like it and didn't shoot any again for a very long time. About a year ago I shot some more both in 35mm and MF but again I wasn't...

www.photrio.com

(Rolleiflex/ FP4+/yellow filter)

GregY · May 23, 2025

Milpool said:
I agree. Films certainly aren’t all the same. Different image structure, response to processing, different curve shapes (although with a few exceptions they mostly aren’t all that different except at extreme exposure levels), spectral sensitivity, reciprocity behaviour…

In this particular thread I was just referring to what it means for a film to be characterized as high contrast. That can be defined from a sensitometry / tone reproduction perspective.

Points taken. I suspect OP has left the thread behind anyway so I’ll yield.

Milpool, while I agree, I suspect even fewer people on this forum own densitometers than enlargers.

Milpool · May 23, 2025

GregY said:
Milpool, while I agree, I suspect far less people on the forum own densitometers than enlargers.

No doubt (although at this point I suspect relatively few film users have enlargers - most film users scan their negatives) but I’m not suggesting anyone needs a densitometer to make great prints or anything like that. I am suggesting learning a little about sensitometry and tone reproduction might help de-clutter the process of navigating the sea of information (some good, a lot bad). In the end choosing the “right” film and making great negatives are really pretty simple.

dcy · May 23, 2025

Paul Howell said:
I live in Arizona, the low desert, I keep 3 films in my bag... Foma 400 for walk around, midspeed film for general use, Tmax 100 for travel and Foma 100 for walk around... Although the contrast or tone is largley baked into a film it can be massagged by use of low or hight contrast developer.

Shooting in the desert, one would expect high contrast, but I've that it is bright but often low contast, lots of reflected light, but when there are shadows the shadows go very dark. With Tmax 100 I generally use a general propose developer like D76, HC 110, ... With Foma I use Diafine as I can shoot box speed and get a printable highlight in a high contast scene. There are so many developers that can move a films characteristic curve it is easy to get bogged down.

Oh, tangent here:

Someone told me to stay away from Foma 400 because it's hard to develop, is low quality, and has huge horrible grain.

Despite that advice, I ordered two rolls to try out. Partly because I just want to support a small film maker; partly because of the price; but also because the sample photos I see online look fine to me.

I haven't shot it yet. It's in the fridge. Do you have any tips for how to shoot or develop it? I was planning to shoot it at ISO 250 (the data sheet suggests that this is an ISO 200-250 film) and develop in D-76 (just ordered, following the advice of a member of this forum).

I also have Rodinal and PC-TEA. I just figure D-76 will make the grain smaller.

pentaxuser · May 23, 2025

I wonder where in the world's latitudes the use of Pan F fits? If it's not those areas at latitudes of New Mexico and it is too slow for most of say N Europe then where?

Is it a film for a narrow range of latitudes only and if so what is the range?

pentaxuser

Paul Howell · May 23, 2025

dcy said:
Oh, tangent here:

Someone told me to stay away from Foma 400 because it's hard to develop, is low quality, and has huge horrible grain.

Despite that advice, I ordered two rolls to try out. Partly because I just want to support a small film maker; partly because of the price; but also because the sample photos I see online look fine to me.

I haven't shot it yet. It's in the fridge. Do you have any tips for how to shoot or develop it? I was planning to shoot it at ISO 250 (the data sheet suggests that this is an ISO 200-250 film) and develop in D-76 (just ordered, following the advice of a member of this forum).

I also have Rodinal and PC-TEA. I just figure D-76 will make the grain smaller.

I would use D 76 stock shoot at 200 to 320. With Foma 400 I stay away from ~~acceptance~~ acutance type developers such as Rodinal and PC Tea. Currently I use Diafine which I think works rather well. Diafine is now made by Omega Brands and is rather expensive I doubt I will buy another kit unless I can it on Ebay. If you want to try DYI you can try divided D 23, D23 will tame the grain, in the divided form will also compensate for high contrast situations. From Chatbot but both AA and Minor White provided the forumal as well.

The D-23 developer formula, used in black and white film development, typically involves 7.5 grams of Metol, 100 grams of Sodium Sulfite, and water to make a total of 1 liter.

Alex Benjamin · May 23, 2025

dcy said:
Someone told me to stay away from Foma 400 because it's hard to develop, is low quality, and has huge horrible grain.

You have to stop listening to someone.

Foma 400 is a good film. As Paul mentioned, it can look great in D-23.

And it doesn't have "huge horrible grain." It can be grainy, but depending on how it's developed, the (very reasonable) grain can give it a lot of charm, as grain can with many films. I understand why people don't want grain — at least past a certain level — in their own production, but complaining both a priori and de facto about the presence of grain is generally a sign of photographic illiteracy.

Oh, and another sign of photographic illiteracy is saying a film is "hard to develop." All films are easy to develop. What's hard lies elsewhere.

MattKing · May 23, 2025

FWIW, if you see a statement like "Film XYZ isn't a film that I would choose for working in conditions like ABC", it is fairly likely that that film has a characteristic curve, when used in commonly used developers, that are a poor fit for typical lighting conditions and/or subjects that one might find there.
To pick a clear a fairly obvious example, Tri-X 320 was designed for studio portraiture conditions, using lighting that was traditionally found there. It was designed with a long toe characteristic curve that was matched to that situation.
Environmental portraiture with Tri-X 320 would be a lousy idea in the midday sun in New Mexico. It might work well in a shaded New Mexico canyon, where the subject is illuminated by the combination of a small area of open sky, combined with diffused light reflecting off the shaded canyon wall adjacent to the subject.
But in either situation, @dcy could probably get decent images using Tri-X 320. It is just that the film is much better suited to one of them than the other - something that probably wouldn't be easily appreciated by @dcy without a lot more experience using it.

GregY · May 23, 2025

pentaxuser said:
I wonder where in the world's latitudes the use of Pan F fits? If it's not those areas at latitudes of New Mexico and it is too slow for most of say N Europe then where?

Is it a film for a narrow range of latitudes only and if so what is the range?

pentaxuser

I prefer Pan F in studio type settings
(tulip photo Rolleflex w tripod, 20x20" print)

I can't think of any place in N Europe i'd use any iso 50 film especially given how good the TMax/Delta films are & with which in 6x9 i can approach LF results.
Here's an exception....w Agfapan 25 (6x8 neg)..20x24" print....today i'd use Tmax/Delta 100

Here's an example from 35mm. TMax 100. 11x14" print. The detail is incredible. I can't imagine balancing optimum f stop/ shutter speed with iso 50 film.
Like many others, I feel that PanF doesn't handle mid tone separation well. In the time before T grain films it filled a niche. Today if/when i use 35mm i still want optimize tonal quality. I don't enlarge past 11x14" in 35mm. If i am printing bigger then i go to MF or ideally LF

Here's one more from last summer...no tripod...supported on a fence post ....TMax 100/Yellow filter/MF
There's no way i could have managed to get a sharp image with iso 50 film.

pentaxuser said:
I wonder where in the world's latitudes the use of Pan F fits? If it's not those areas at latitudes of New Mexico and it is too slow for most of say N Europe then where?

Is it a film for a narrow range of latitudes only and if so what is the range?

pentaxuser

GregY · May 23, 2025

Paul Howell said:
I would use D 76 stock shoot at 200 to 320. With Foma 400 I stay away from acceptance type developers such as Rodinal and PC Tea. Currently I use Diafine which I think works rather well. Diafine is now made by Omega Brands and is rather expensive I doubt I will buy another kit unless I can it on Ebay. If you want to try DYI you can try divided D 23, D23 will tame the grain, in the divided form will also compensate for high contrast situations. From Chatbot but both AA and Minor White provided the forumal as well.

The D-23 developer formula, used in black and white film development, typically involves 7.5 grams of Metol, 100 grams of Sodium Sulfite, and water to make a total of 1 liter.

Did you mean acutance..... & did auto correct make unauthorized changes?

Paul Howell · May 23, 2025

Yep, slipped past me.

MattKing · May 23, 2025

GregY said:
Did you mean acutance..... & did auto correct make unauthorized changes?

Paul Howell said:
Yep, slipped past me.

Fixed it for you.
Although the Moderator in me kind of like the reference to an "acceptance" type developer

dcy · May 24, 2025

MattKing said:
But in either situation, @dcy could probably get decent images using Tri-X 320. It is just that the film is much better suited to one of them than the other - something that probably wouldn't be easily appreciated by @dcy without a lot more experience using it.

Yeah. I keep seeing people expressing strong opinions about which film is dull or muddy or contrasty, but when I look photos with those films, they all look fine to me, and honestly I mostly can't tell them apart. I can see grain, but that's it, and right now I don't have strong feelings about grain either way.

mshchem · May 24, 2025

Paul Howell said:
I live in Arizona, the low desert, I keep 3 films in my bag, a high speed film, in my case Tmax 400 when traveling, Foma 400 for walk around, midspeed film for general use, Tmax 100 for travel and Foma 100 for walk around, my Tripod film has changed over time, at one it was Pantomic X, a Kodak film no longer being made, then a ISO 25 film from EKFE no longer being made, now it is PanF. I have a few rolls of Tmax 3200 for verty low light. Tmax 100 has highest resloution at 200LPM, finest grain, finer than PanX which is why Kodak stopped making it along with Plux X. It has higher inheranint contrast then Tmax 400 or TriX, for that matter a bit higher than Foma 100. Although the contrast or tone is largley baked into a film it can be massagged by use of low or hight contrast developer.

Shooting in the desert, one would expect high contrast, but I've that it is bright but often low contast, lots of reflected light, but when there are shadows the shadows go very dark. With Tmax 100 I generally use a general propose developer like D76, HC 110, in very flat lighting I have used Edwal 12, Acufine or DK50. With Foma I use Diafine as I can shoot box speed and get a printable highlight in a high contast scene. There are so many developers that can move a films characteristic curve it is easy to get bogged down.

Very good choices and advice!!!

I use a lot of XTOL, but D76 either straight or diluted is a phenomenal developer. Mix your own with a $25 electronic scale. I love TMY and TMX, just tried the Kentmere 200 haven't printed yet but the negatives look great under a loupe. It's all good.

Controlling contrast in B&W film

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency