Good b&w portrait film?

[2F/2F]

Plus-X or FP4. Simple, non-finicky, non-technically-demanding, BEAUTIFUL, can be found everywhere in small and medium formats, and the FP4 in large format. If you haven't nailed them down yet, it won't hurt to down rate them 1/3 stop or 2/3 stop (EIs 100 and 80, respectively), though this is not necessary. Any developer will work, but I'd go with something standard like D-76 straight or 1:1, or HC-110 dilution B. They can get grainy in small format, even though they are medium-speed films, so medium format would be better, IMO.

Though it may sound like a miracle film (and certainly is in many ways), I would not use Pan F until you have done a healthy amount of experimentation with it. Once you have it nailed down, there are few, if any, better films to use for portraits if you have the light and must use a small format camera. However, it can drop shadows like mad, so must be nailed down, and even after that, shot in suitable light.

 

[Simon R Galley]

I will give you the old and biased but ILFORD mantra

If it sits still PAN F +
If its moving FP4+
If its moving faster HP5+
If its moving very, very fast DELTA 3200

Technically questionable......but true

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Scott Edwards]

Issues to consider before making a choice:
What enlargement size from what negative size? Personally, I look for a certain sparkle in a given print size and adjust my film choice to fit final grain size in the print. I rarely exceed 4x in my enlargements from negatives, unless it's PanF film, and then only 6x to get the same sparkle.
So, bearing this in mind, I enlarge to 16x20 with FP4, 11x14 with HP5, Forte 400 and Tri-X from 4x5 negatives, 14x14 in 120 film and 6x9 in 35mm with PanF.

Second to consider, is who and how are you going to photograph? Group shots are okay with a high acutance film/developer combination, but I wouldn't use the same combination of film and developer on say a close up of my mother. As far as softness in the image is concerned, split grade printing should give you as much control over this as you desire.

 

[keithwms]

I will give you the old and biased but ILFORD mantra

If it sits still PAN F +
If its moving FP4+
If its moving faster HP5+
If its moving very, very fast DELTA 3200

Technically questionable......but true

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Hmm, where does xp2 fit into that, Simon? If it has fast highlights, if you need to do c41, if you need to scan...

 

[Anscojohn]

FWIW, I knew a studio portraitist who shot with his 'Blad and used Verichrome Pan souped in Versatol.

 

[rwboyer]

So,

Are we missing any films, developers, or formats for a "good portrait film" recommendation here? Maybe some ortho guys or some lith guys or even some IR guys are loosing some ground here. I heard that collodian plates are awesome for portrait work.

;-)

RB

 

[fschifano]

I'm with 2F/2F here. Plus-X or FP4+ are great choices if you have the light. PanF+ can be really beautiful if there is enough light under your control to work with and you have some experience with the film. I like it in D-76 or ID-11 1+3 right at Ilford's recommended time. I almost never use it outdoors. If you need an extra two stops of speed over Plus-X or FP4+, TMY-2 will get you about the same grain as Plus-X and it is really beautiful. Any of them work fine in D-76, slightly better in XTOL, and unless you are shooting a group of more than three or four at a time, should suffice in 35 mm format. For larger group shots, use the same films but use a bigger negative if you can. If you want really grainless enlargements greater than 10x, consider TMX or Delta 100.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

So, up until this post you have gotten recommended:
Kodak Plus-X
Ilford FP4+
Ilford Pan-F+
Kodak Tmax 400
Ilford Delta 100
Kodak Tmax 100
Agfa APX 100
Ilford Delta 400
Efke 25
Ilford XP2 Super
Kodak Tri-X 400
Kodak Tri-X 320
Foma 100
Ilford Delta 3200
Fuji Acros 100
Ilford HP5+
Forte 400
Kodak Verichrome Pan

What did we learn here?

 

[keithwms]

We learned that my suggestion is the best one

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Keith, you are a fast learner if I ever saw one... LOL

 

[Scott Edwards]

What did we learn here?

I think what we learned here is that it's much more than film choice. Ask yourself all the "What, where, when, how and why?" questions and then pick a film that gives you the look you want.

The people who post here do so to share experience and hopefully shed light on a complex subject. What works for some may not work for others. What we can do is set the table. You will ulitimately decide upon what works best for you.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think what we learned here is that it's much more than film choice. Ask yourself all the "What, where, when, how and why?" questions and then pick a film that gives you the look you want.

I was hoping that you would reply with:

'Instead of trying to find the perfect film for each occasion, we learn how to tweak the materials we know inside and out to suit the application'.

This is why I am a staunch believer in tweaking how I use one single film to suit my purpose, because I know exactly what to expect under all conditions. It means I don't have to pose the question of what film to use even. That is freedom!

But you are right in a way that it is good to share experiences. It is also healthy to question the validity of what you believe is true, to get you way outside your comfort zone.
If somebody locked you in a room to do nothing but still life images, portraits, or whatever, and with one film only, don't you think you would be able to learn how to use one single emulsion to fit all your needs?
And if you are able to do this, why would you then want to change? What will you gain?

 

[Scott Edwards]

Kudos, Tom.

 

[2F/2F]

I will give you the old and biased but ILFORD mantra

If it sits still PAN F +
If its moving FP4+
If its moving faster HP5+
If its moving very, very fast DELTA 3200

Technically questionable......but true

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

...and FORGET Delta 100 and 400. We really don't like them all that much, and they are only there as a requisite answer to Kodak T-Max anyhow.



You definitely have it nailed at Ilford. I agree with the above statements totally, and with the omission of Delta 100 and 400. The four you named are the only Ilford films I use (occasionally SFX too). The rare occasions on which I want a T-grained film, I prefer Kodak T-Max; especially the 400.

 

[JohnArs]

I use for male TMAX 100 because its a tick more contrasty then Delta!
For a woman I use Delta 100 if I need more speed then its TMAX 400 if I need even more speed for acts on stage, then its Delta 3200!
I skipt Delta 400 because its not anymore in sheet films. I only buy films which I also get as sheet film only exeption is Ilford PanF which I use sometimes in very brite light and I want use a fast lens almost fully open, to get the background unsharp.

Cheers Armin

 

[DramaKing]

plus x works very well for portraits
and if you are shooting largeformat tri x is nice too ...

then again tmy works well and ...

sorry to ask this dramaking, what do you usually shoot bw portraits with ?
maybe you should use what you are accustom to shooting, instead of using random suggestions for film and developers ..

sorry for the whole voice of reason thing, once in a while it whispers in my ear ...

Sorry, if I sound antagonizing, but I haven't done this before. At least, not in b&w. So I don't really know what to use. I can see from some of these responses that part of it is simply knowing the correct questions to ask.

So, up until this post you have gotten recommended:
Kodak Plus-X
Ilford FP4+
Ilford Pan-F+
Kodak Tmax 400
Ilford Delta 100
Kodak Tmax 100
Agfa APX 100
Ilford Delta 400
Efke 25
Ilford XP2 Super
Kodak Tri-X 400
Kodak Tri-X 320
Foma 100
Ilford Delta 3200
Fuji Acros 100
Ilford HP5+
Forte 400
Kodak Verichrome Pan

What did we learn here?

You forgot to add the collodion suggestion to the list. But really, I think I did learn something here. I believe that there is the right film for the right job, but sometimes when in new territory, it takes some feeling out to find the right film, developer, filter, what-have-you combination to get an ideal result.

Maybe I shouldn't rely so much on trying to choose the 'perfect film,' and I do need to find better ways of tweaking a film for my purposes. Like I said above, part of what I've found here is things to look for in a portrait film.

 

[moouers]

So, up until this post you have gotten recommended:
Kodak Plus-X
Ilford FP4+
Ilford Pan-F+
Kodak Tmax 400
Ilford Delta 100
Kodak Tmax 100
Agfa APX 100
Ilford Delta 400
Efke 25
Ilford XP2 Super
Kodak Tri-X 400
Kodak Tri-X 320
Foma 100
Ilford Delta 3200
Fuji Acros 100
Ilford HP5+
Forte 400
Kodak Verichrome Pan

What did we learn here?

We learned to know what look we desire before choosing a film

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It is more about how you use your materials than what you use. Practice, practice, practice, print often, print often, practice some more. You will be able to give a film MANY different looks by just treating it differently.
And that is infinitely easier than trying to learn many different films, to have a perfect film for each occasion. Because you know what to expect.
The trouble is, it takes a little bit of time to get used to what a film does at low light, flat light, contrasty light, direct sunlight, long exposures, etc. And to keep track of all that, knowing how to process many different films for optimum results, is going to be much more difficult than just one film. You can probably do it, if you want to. All I'm trying to do is save the original poster, and everybody else, some time.

My approach is to use only Tmax 400 as my mainstay. I know exactly how to process it for the results I want and my paper needs. Then I usually will flirt with a second emulsion, just for fun, or like right now I'm in a bit of a hole financially, so I'm using some Arista branded film for unimportant photographs.

So, the look you're referring to can usually be obtained with almost any film if you just try hard enough. Just lock yourself in a closet with a few bulk rolls of Tri-X and D76. Or HP5+, or FP4+, or Neopan, or Tmax, or Delta, or... you get the picture. But once you have the process down for one film, and you know how to adjust it to different conditions, then use a different film, learn it equally well, and compare your results. See if you can tell much difference and if you think it was worth it.

We learned to know what look we desire before choosing a film

 

[Bosaiya]

Efke 25 all the way. Beautiful.

Of course it really depends on what look you're after! Do you want soft and sumptuous or hard and gritty? What is the personality of the couple in question? It's really hard to make a recommendation on something as broad as B&W film without knowing the specifics.

 

[Schlapp]

I can't see it makes a jot of difference. Use what you have in any format you have with any lens you have. There are brilliant portraitists around who use a myriad of combinations. How about LF and x-ray film? Andrew Sanderson does a great job with that. Jane Bown - 35mm. and loads of others
In my little experience, its more to do with how you place the subject, where the light is and how you interact.
My best portrait for a while was down with 35mm, Legacy 400 @1600 in an old temperamental Kiev rangefinder and Jupiter12 lens. Souped in rodinal 1:100 for 2 hours standing. Prints lovely too.

 

[Scott Edwards]

Well I'm still of the school where I buy film for the project and my processing methods remain constant. It's easier for me to purchase film and keep the developer and agitation methods the same. I started out by going with the suggestions for development offered by the Digital Truth Massive Development chart, and also by those suggestions that came with the Pyrocat HD instructions. I've only had to make minor adjustments to suit my taste.

Why use more than one film? For that matter, why choose more than one lens, or camera, or subject? Yes, you can go commando and learn all the ins and outs of a very limited camera bag. Like I said before to Tom, "Kudos" for being able to do that.

For my money and style, I like more choice in film with a fixed processing regimen. Especially when my enlargement sizes range from 4"x5" to 16"x20" while attempting to maintain the "look" that my images have.

And yes, films like TMax 400 and Delta 400 are VERY flexible films, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend either of them to someone who is interested in a do-it-all film choice.

But again, there are results that are "good enough" and then there's "ideal".

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I can't see it makes a jot of difference. Use what you have in any format you have with any lens you have. There are brilliant portraitists around who use a myriad of combinations. How about LF and x-ray film? Andrew Sanderson does a great job with that. Jane Bown - 35mm. and loads of others
In my little experience, its more to do with how you place the subject, where the light is and how you interact.
My best portrait for a while was down with 35mm, Legacy 400 @1600 in an old temperamental Kiev rangefinder and Jupiter12 lens. Souped in rodinal 1:100 for 2 hours standing. Prints lovely too.

THAT is of course the most important thing! But so easy to forget.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Scott,

I'm glad your system works for you, and I don't think I can tell anyone that they are wrong.

In the past I used Ilford FP4+ and Kodak Tri-X 400 side by side a lot; I processed them in Pyrocat-HD. And from the two I got remarkably similar looking prints. To such a degree that I decided to go with Tri-X 400 all the way. Not because I dislike FP4+, but for simplicity. TX400 I could just add a 2 stop ND filter when I wanted to shoot wide open on a bright day.

When you switch films around, and this is out of curiosity only, which ones do you use, and what is your reason for using one over the other?

For me, (and I'm confused easily), it would be a nightmare to try to find and stock film of each kind, as well as remembering what each film does under all circumstances. I don't think I could do it that way no matter how hard I tried.

I'd like to understand how you do it, if you would care to explain your system.

Well I'm still of the school where I buy film for the project and my processing methods remain constant. It's easier for me to purchase film and keep the developer and agitation methods the same. I started out by going with the suggestions for development offered by the Digital Truth Massive Development chart, and also by those suggestions that came with the Pyrocat HD instructions. I've only had to make minor adjustments to suit my taste.

Why use more than one film? For that matter, why choose more than one lens, or camera, or subject? Yes, you can go commando and learn all the ins and outs of a very limited camera bag. Like I said before to Tom, "Kudos" for being able to do that.

For my money and style, I like more choice in film with a fixed processing regimen. Especially when my enlargement sizes range from 4"x5" to 16"x20" while attempting to maintain the "look" that my images have.

And yes, films like TMax 400 and Delta 400 are VERY flexible films, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend either of them to someone who is interested in a do-it-all film choice.

But again, there are results that are "good enough" and then there's "ideal".

 

[Scott Edwards]

I really only use 2 types of film. Coarse grain and fine grain. Forte films are notoriously coarse. One could get close results with TriX. If I'm shooting an abstraction say, of the desert floor, I would want a coarse texture to make the image texturally palpable. If I were shooting a seascape I would probably want a finer grain to show off the liquidity of the water. Masculine portraits are grainy. Feminine portraits smooth. It all boils down to what the finished enlargement might be and how to render the subject. I'll add 2 images to illustrate.

4x5 film
Prints to 11x14:
Landscapes, abstractions, masculine close-up portraiture - Forte 400 at ISO 200
Waterscapes, feminine portraiture - Forte 200 at ISO 100

16"x20" prints:
abstractions - Forte 200 at ISO 100
All portraiture and landscapes - FP4

120 film
Prints to 11"x11" - TriX 400
16"x16" prints - Efke R25 at ISO 12

Examples:
Coarse grain - Shows off masculine texture of calouses and dirt (Forte 400 @ ISO 200)
Fine grain - Exhibits smooth texture and gradation of female subject (Ilford FP4 at rated speed)

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

Now, I didn't just run out and buy different kinds of film all at once. I plan my portfolios with an image size and certain look in mind before I go out and buy film for it. There is always film leftover, and so I end up with 4 or 5 different kinds of film in my fridge as a result. For those who just shoot on the wing, having one kind of film is probably the best idea. For people working on a commission or exhibition project, you really want an ideal film I think. Again, I'm happy for anyone who has one film for everything. I think Michael and Paula stocked up on Super XX when they heard it was going out of production, because it really works for their contact printing. Weston used one film.

Just go shoot and have fun.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Oh, I'm having fun, Scott. Thank you for explaining. I appreciate it. Your photographs are really fine.

I use 35mm, 120, and 5x7. Probably 120 the most. I print to 11x14 and soon to 16x20, like you, and am not finding myself wanting a different film for lack of a certain quality. I respect your analysis, and your dedication to seeking perfection. Ultimately I think it's about finding a way that works for you, and then stick to it; this eliminates the clutter of material choice, and the shooting becomes intuitive. The process itself should, in my opinion, not be something you have to consider while shooting, it should be instantaneous and instinctive.

Anyway, I am planning on shooting a whole mess of film in the next couple of weeks. Should be a good time.

- Thomas