Film and Paper Reviews?

[DieHipsterDie]

Looking for a web site with reviews of b&w paper and film.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Here. Just use the search function.

 

[DieHipsterDie]

Looking for something more concise and compact. Organized by paper/film
brand.

 

[Markok765]

Are you looking for starter films with a good exp latitude and easy deving? try ilford hp5 or kodak tri-x.for paper use ilford multigrade FB

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

GFE my friend.

 

[roteague]

Looking for something more concise and compact. Organized by paper/film
brand.

If you have questions about a specific paper or film just ask.

There are no specific reviews on this site of the type you are asking for. Perhaps, someone else knows a site where this type of information can be found.

 

[Nancy]

If you go to photography review dot com and then go to browse reviews they have quite a few user reviews on different films. I don't know if that will help but.....

 

[Roger Hicks]

Looking for a web site with reviews of b&w paper and film.

You have to consider a number of factors.

First, why would anyone do serious testing for nothing? My wife Frances Schultz and I frequently test films and papers for Shutterbug magazine and others. It's hard work and not particularly enjoyable when you are testing film resolution, plotting d/log E curves, trying different developers, etc. Most real photographers would rather take pictures.

Second, the vast majority of tests on the web (and indeed in magazines) are not tests at all, but impressions, often highly partisan.

Third, and akin to the second, many web 'tests' are not comparative, or if they are, the comparisons are extremely biased. You will seldom read 'This is a very good film, and if I couldn't get [insert film here] I'd be perfectly happy using it, but as I prefer [insert film here] I don't think I'd switch'.

Fourth, ANY test involves a degree of subjectivity. You need to know the writer's biases and preference (which is a great advantage of magazine tests -- the same person normally handles all the tests) before you can really appreciate what they are saying.

Finally, no-one can tell you what you're going to like anyway, so tests are only a pretty rough guide. The more detailed, objective information you can get, the better -- and as already noted, few web tests are either detailed or objective.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Ole]

There are some pretty good curves on the net - but in Norwegian only.

They're on http://fotoimport.no/pg01/pg01b.htm - "film" and "papir" should be obvious, then select the type of paper or film you want to look at, and click the type again in the price list.

 

[RobertP]

Looking for a web site with reviews of b&w paper and film.

You can go to the Azo Forum. Sandy King has done some extensive testing and posted a lot of results there.

 

[DieHipsterDie]

Thanks y'all. What I'm really looking for is a primer on really basic characteristics of different film and paper. e.g. in general, how does Agfa Neopan differ from Tri-X? Are Ilford papers know for producing particular tones? Is there really any difference between b&w film brands and what are those basic differences? What the hay is t grain? etc. etc.

For what it's worth, I like fine grain film and cold tones.

 

[ChuckP]

Photo Techniques Mag has some roundups of film and paper. Check their website for back issues. You will have to pay though. Also old View Cameras had some good paper articles. This kind of testing can get pretty complex if you use many developers or different processing systems. Paper age also can factor in. Most products are pretty much the same with a few having special characteristics. Also I would look for testing that uses step wedges not real negatives. You will probably find someone producing great prints on any of the products out there. So negative testing makes seeing the real differences difficult.

 

[Rob Archer]

When I started to get really into B&W photography about 10 years ago I spent hours looking at different test in magazines etc and listening to 'knowledgable' photographers trying to tell me that they're favourite film/dev combination was the only one to use and that mine (HP5/ ID11) was crap. I also witnessed a near punch-up over whether Agfa paper was better than Kodak! (somewhat irrelevent now!) I soon learnt to ignore reviews (and 'experts') and try things for yourself. There's loads of good info out there, but let it inspire you rather than constrain you.

Incidentally My best ever shots were on HP5/ID11! -

Enjoy!!!


Rob

 

[Markok765]

this will help with the t-grain: http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/support/h1/H1_23-27.pdf#search="what is t-grain"
If you like really fine grain try ilford pan f+.
for cool tone try ilford cooltone papers or cool tone dev.
I find tri-x in d76 give me prety fine grain, but since i like grain i use rodinal with tri-x

 

[haziz]

Bruce Barlow did a paper/developer review (looking at roughly 14-15 papers and multiple developers) for View Camera magazine. I believe it was posted in the magazine's archived articles subsection. You need to subscribe to the magazine to access it.

Sincerely,

Hany.

 

[BBarlow690]

Speaking for myself, Bruce Barlow DID do a big comparison. Same negative, controlled conditions. Total insanity.

At the moment, I'm trying to post PDF versions anyone can read or download for free at www.circleofthesunproductions.com, but I'm having some trouble with the links to Parts 1 through 3. As soon as I figure it out, you'll have access to them. I need to talk to adviser Ted Harris to find the error of my ways.

Be advised that the articles are dated...sadly, a number of the papers I tested are no longer available. But most are still there, and there's the entertainment value of how someone could actually DO this.

The never-published Part 4, on Kodak Azo and the Azo enlarging head IS available for download. Don't ask why that link works and the others don't. Be my guest and scroll down til you find it. While Azo is no longer generally available, I have faith that Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee will deliver another paper just as good or better, so while my Azo experience is a little dated, it's not entirely irrelevant.

Hope this is helpful. But I will interject that for anyone who considers themself a novice printer, the paper and developer is not the problem. Pick one of each that is readily available to you, and use it. After your printing expertise has grown, then and only then venture into other papers. The differences between papers are not that great, and the different developers' effects on a given paper are far mor subtle than the differences between papers. So for a relative beginner, paper and developer choice are far less important than training the eye to print a good print. Heck, in my tests Ilford RC Cooltone consistently "beat" other, more highly regarded papers in my admittedly highly subjective tests. Nevertheless, learn on RC, use Dektol (which was consistently excellent) and save some money.

 

[df cardwell]

A danger of reading reviews, as Roger pointed out, is the varying quality of the review. Most of what is published is simply recycled rubbish that is --- false, misleading, and, well, stupid.

There are few absolute statements that can be made about films: they have to be judged by their performance with specific developers, and then, for specific purposes.

The best thing to do is to leave the 'numbers are reality' attitude at the door. Don't look for the 'one right answer'. Every film that is on the market is capable of dazzling, spectacular results. Every film is designed to do specific things. And until a certain mastery is achieved there is no better rule than the oldest one in photography: pick one film, one developer, one paper, one developer. Use it for everything, make pictures, learn, learn, and learn.

There is NO WAY a beginner can work to a high enough standard to discern the difference between Neopan and Tri X. The differences are profound, but not until you've got the craft under control.

Pick one of the 400 films, and stick with it. Pick a developer, stick with it.

If you have a particular kind of picture you want to make, and want some guidance, ask.

If not, go buy a couple long rolls of Tri X and get to work.

 

[firecracker]

I agree with most comments here about sticking to one developer, one paper, one lens, and one enlarger. And I will add that to get the best result from each product, you need to get a your own setup with consistency. If you share a dev. bath with other people, etc while working if you're taking a class or something, you won't be able ot get nearly as critical about what you're using.

Also different markets have different popular products widely available, so find the ones in your market that is your most accessive area first. For example, here is Japan, Fuji is like Kodak in the U.S. and Agfa in Europe. If you stick to Fuji and manage to like the characters of their products, you don't have to look anywhere else. Ilford has a very limited supply in this country for some reason (I know why), but the alternatives can be found and provided by teh companies such as Oriental and Mitsubishi besides Fuji. You need to experiment a little.

I always post this comment because I always find a simlar question from some people who are in Japan, cannot find their old favorites they had been using in other countries, and feel stuck or frustrated about their situation. Well, I was like that, too, but not any more.