Guide to BW films?

cesrig · Sep 26, 2008

Greetings,

This is my first post here... I'm currently a photo student and starting to branch out experimenting with different film, but I'm still a little uncertain of what I should be looking for as far as differences between types such as Delta and FP4 and brands like Kodak and Efke, just as examples. Is there a website or guide somewhere that someone might point me to that will give a comprehensive or at least brief rundown on comparing different types of film and manufacturers?

Thanks a lot!

Steve Smith · Sep 26, 2008

Have a look here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/node/34

And Ilford have some good guides in PDF form on their website: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/producttype.asp?n=3&t=Consumer+&+Professional+Films

I'm not aware of a site that collates all of that information into one resource though. Could be a nice idea for an article here. A search of images in the style(s) you are interested in may reveal which films were used.

Steve.

Ian Grant · Sep 26, 2008

As your a photo student there should be a recommended book list for your course. Michael Langford, Basic Photography is often suggested.

There are literally hundreds of books out there plus numerous websites, but Ilford's own site is a good starter.

You would do better to stick with one make of film, like Ilford and stick to a medium speed film like FP4 & a high speed film like HP5 and really learn the craft rather than get lost in playing with films from a variety of manufacturers.

Ian

Mark Antony · Sep 26, 2008

I have quite a lot of film tests on my blog, they are rough guides but include images (which is tricky as everyones screen is slightly different) and general thoughts on basic character of some emulsions.
I have looked at the Foma films. EFKE/Adox Ilford, Kodak, Fuji and Forte.
here is a link to a test of Adox CHS50 Art
Efke/Adox 50
But as others suggest mastering one film (or possibly two) is a better way to learn then you have a reference point when trying out other emulsions.
I think for the first couple of years I just used Tri-x/HP5 and FP4 in ID11.
Mark

Marco B · Sep 26, 2008

Silverprint has extensive info about films on their website, see the PDF's section, there also used to be a handy quick overview PDF on their website, listing a big number of BW and color films with some basic tips about characteristics and the purpose or usage of the film, but I can't find it at the moment...

http://www.silverprint.co.uk/

Mark Antony · Sep 26, 2008

Good point marco, I'd forgot the Silverprint PDF resource Retro photographic has one too (under technical section) which is good for the Efke/Adox stuff:
Dead Link Removed

Those two PDF galleries are full of info.
Mark

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 26, 2008

I made the mistake of experimenting too much with films and developers and I consider my first three years or so of photography lost because of it. It didn't give me any direction, and I didn't really learn what happens during development.
The advice was given to me to stop trying different films, and stick to one or two emulsions and don't look elsewhere until you know exactly what happens to them when you develop them.
I learned the following:
1. All films are beautiful in one way or another.
2. The results are almost more dependent on HOW I use the film than what film I use.
3. I forgot about the film part, and learned to SEE, which is infinitely more important than what film you use.

Please don't make the same mistake I did. What I thought I was going to find was a silver bullet to better photography. All I found was confusion. When I started using just one film and one developer, all of a sudden things started falling into place.
I also took the advice that "you don't really know what's going on in the film developing stage until you start printing your negatives often". That was another statement worth its weight in gold. You learn two things from doing that:
1. You really understand what negative density and contrast in the negative does to the final print! Until you print your negs, you have no way of knowing this!
2. You become a much better printer.

With that said, I am a believer of using the best materials, and I'm talking about film, chemistry, and paper. Ilford, Kodak, Fuji are, in my opinion, a notch above the rest when it comes to quality control and films. All of their films are great. The others are behind them in quality, but they offer emulsions that are of equal beauty. But remember that the differences between film strips/sheets are just as dependent on how you use them as the material itself to get a certain look.

Good luck, please learn from my mistake.

- Thomas

markbarendt · Sep 26, 2008

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I made the mistake of experimenting too much with films and developers...

What I thought I was going to find was a silver bullet to better photography. All I found was confusion....

Good luck, please learn from my mistake.

- Thomas

I agree completely with Thomas!

When I should have been focusing on Telling a story, Great Composition, & Perfecting my ability to Expose reliably, I was focused on all the technical minutia.

Digital is even worse in leading the unsuspecting down a path away from what really matters. This is one of the reasons I switched backed to film.

More and more I'm working toward a smaller set of tools.

Henri Cartier-Bresson's style is a great inspiration for me in this quest.

removed account4 · Sep 26, 2008

cesrig,

there is no such thing as a silver bullet,
but there is knowledge about what 1 developer and 1 film can do
in a variety of situations.

i couldn't agree more with thomas ...

good luck

john

hywel · Sep 26, 2008

I somewhat disagree with the mainstream thought of sticking with one film and developer whilst learning and think it would be great if there was, or this forum could generate, some sort of list of the basics of all the films out there.

My thinking is that there are some films that are very alike. HP5+ and Tri-X. Anyone who honestly cares which they have in their camera isn't asking questions on this forum. And there's no doubt that nobody who is learning should be trying one if they've tried the other thinking that it'll make a jot of difference to anything. But there are some films that are very different. Tri-X and TMax100 for example. Someone who has done as all the good photojournalists did and stuck Tri-X in his 35mm camera and just isn't happy with the grain really should try TMax or Delta films and try them sooner rather than later.

But, cesrig, I'm afraid I don't know of the list you are asking about. One thing that might be worth looking at is the Competitor Equivalents list that Ilford has on their website.

Hywel

gminerich · Sep 26, 2008

Thomas is very wise. You should consider his sage advice!
I was a simple person for years. I shot mostly FP-4 and sometimes Pan F (120) developed in Diafine. For some reason this fall I went off on a tangent and shot Pan F, FP-4,Delta 100, Acros and TMax 400. I also acquired a bottle of Rodinal, HC-110 and some Xtol. I have processed about 40 rolls of film in the last 10 days with 10 more rolls to go before I’m caught up. I look at almost every frame with a good loop on a light box and made the following discovery. They are all very fine grained and lovely. The biggest difference is me. Did I do my part with light, composition, exposure and light! So I am going to go back to one or two films, one developer and work on me.
George M.

pauliej · Sep 26, 2008

I have learned a lot from checking the books in my local library (Photography is the 770 Dewey section). Also check the Flickr website and Roger Hicks & Frances Schultz site too. I hope this helps you.

Paul

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Sep 26, 2008

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I made the mistake of experimenting too much with films and developers and I consider my first three years or so of photography lost because of it.

Yes! I was also jumping from film to film at the beginning, and my problem was simply that I did not know what to look for in a film.

It's a chicken and egg situation. Certain films are better for certain intents. But trying them all is just a better way to have nothing consistent to make comparisons. But you need to try various films to know! etc.

So here's my solution for the OP: learning is in fact a feedback loop, a spiral. Not a linear progression.

Start with one film, one developer. Try it for a bit. Look for obvious stuff like grain, sharpness, and overall gestalt. Then, try another film, and compare. You might be able to start discerning differences.

Now is the time to look at the technical literature. Read up on characteristic curves, spectral sensitivity. Try to see if you can link the differences between the films you've tried with the technical literature.

At that point you should be able to plan a little bit more what film can suit your needs. You have a bit of practical knowledge and you have a bit of theoretical knowledge. Now think about your intent, try to imagine which film will help you achieve it, and go out shooting.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

keithwms · Sep 26, 2008

I'm a big fan of not burying yourself in other people's opinions. Instead, develop your own informed opinions, by guided and methodical experimentation.

To this end, I would recommend purchasing a few rolls of fp4+, hp5+, tmax, delta, acros, ilford xp2 super, efke 25, rollei, tri-X.... and go out and shoot similar subjects with them. Optimally you could borrow a few identical cameras and just shoot the exact same scenes. Then develop per standard recommendations from the manufacturer, make prints, and let that guide you to what you do next. After this exercise you will have yourself a folder of handy reference prints.

I have learned that following the advice of others can [sometimes] help you learn a bit faster and at lower cost, it will not help you build up your own solid knowledge base. I would advise you to learn about traditional vs. t-grain emulsions from the image... i.e. not from the specs or whatever people say you should think about what you see.

Among the many false things I have read/heard in various places:

(1) Rollei IR film isn't a true IR film;
(2) Ilford xp2 is flat;
(3) the fuji instant films are the same as the polaroids;
(4) t-grained films are better/sharper/tonally superior to traditionals;
(5) staining developers are hard to use;
(6) if you want a b&w image then you should shoot with b&w film- conversion to b&w is sacrilege;
(7) ortho film is for duping and that's it;
(8) the efkes are really easy to damage;
(9) hp5+ is too grainy;
... and the list goes on and on.

I definitely see the value of narrowing down to one film/developer combo and getting the best possible results from that, but IMHO that should happen after some initial methodical experimentation. It's too easy to get stuck in a rut otherwise.

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 26, 2008

Film and developer combinations do not make great photographers. Shooting a lot, learning your materials, developing your vision and technique is so much more important than what film and developer you use.
Granted, you cannot make Ilford Pan-F+ look like Delta 3200. I'll give you that.

Seriously, I can tweak my current Plus-X / Rodinal combination to look very different by exposing and developing it differently. I can get almost any look I want. Why can I? Because I learned how it works. If you're trying five different films at once, you have five times the information to learn. That's hard work. I think it's hard to fully understand one film. It takes a lot of trial and error. Things like reciprocity, how to expose and develop for soft gradation, how to do the same for a grainy result full of contrast, how to get high key images well done, how to get low key images right.

- Thomas

terri · Sep 26, 2008

Steve Smith said:
Have a look here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/node/34

And Ilford have some good guides in PDF form on their website: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/producttype.asp?n=3&t=Consumer+&+Professional+Films

I'm not aware of a site that collates all of that information into one resource though. Could be a nice idea for an article here. A search of images in the style(s) you are interested in may reveal which films were used.

Steve.

Somewhat OT, but I feel compelled to comment here - what a pleasure it is for me to see the link to this article on TPF. The author is a fine old gentleman, very knowledgable, who worked for weeks on this B&W series. (And I contributed the images!) It's nice to see it being put to good use here at APUG. Thank you, Steve.

keithwms · Sep 26, 2008

Thomas Bertilsson said:
If you're trying five different films at once, you have five times the information to learn. That's hard work.

Yes it is, but it is work that everyone should do at least once! And you learn a lot by comparing what different films will do with the same scene. Why, if we have all these great films with different personalities, why would we tell a person to settle into one film/dev combo? Frankly I am very thankful that I did not do that.

Thomas, you have already done the experiments, and you've proven to yourself that you can get what you want by working within a narrower set of parameters. But could you have said, a priori, that you could have skipped the experimentation and gone straight to whatever works for you now? How do you know that cross processing some b&w slide film won't make something click in your brain that never clicked before?

Surely you agree that the O.P.'s vision is not the same as yours... he/she may not necessarily be after the same things you are. In fact, he/she may not even know yet what he/she wants. Which is a perfectly acceptable condition at this point. Being a student means taking on a rather humble role of being open to learning.

Frankly, as a teacher, I think my role is to expand the range of possibilities to the extreme, and show what is possible, and to avoid at all costs implying any preferred path. It is the role of the student to find their own path. If I push the student along a particular path, no matter how subtly, then I am denying the student the possibility of finding his/her own path. I think I have to be very careful not to constrain a student's creativity.

Overall, I am simply anti-recipe. Recipes are helpful suggestions, but consider the possibility that all of us used the same recipes....

Yes, it takes some time and effort to do these fundamental experiments, but then the knowledge is yours... and you will retain that knowledge at a deeper level.

3Dfan · Sep 26, 2008

DR5 has a decent review of different b/w films, but only how they behave when reversal processed.

dr5chrome · Sep 26, 2008

I always recommend 'PHOTOGRAPHY by Phil Davis' [rest his soul, he passed last year] as a good basics book for learning, though your instructor likely has his own pick. Traditional photography has a mind boggling area of study. It is best you dip your toe into all of it. It will be confusing at first but you will eventually see how it all draws together. Each film has its own characteristics, try all of them. This link; http://www.blackandwhiteslide.com/filmreview.html is for reversal processing but the basics hold for negs.
Basically you have to decide if you want speed or sharpness. After this decision then look at the grain structure, you will then have your films of choice.

regards
dw

cesrig said:
Greetings,

This is my first post here... I'm currently a photo student and starting to branch out experimenting with different film, but I'm still a little uncertain of what I should be looking for as far as differences between types such as Delta and FP4 and brands like Kodak and Efke, just as examples. Is there a website or guide somewhere that someone might point me to that will give a comprehensive or at least brief rundown on comparing different types of film and manufacturers?

Thanks a lot!

Sirius Glass · Sep 26, 2008

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I made the mistake of experimenting too much with films and developers and I consider my first three years or so of photography lost because of it. It didn't give me any direction, and I didn't really learn what happens during development.
The advice was given to me to stop trying different films, and stick to one or two emulsions and don't look elsewhere until you know exactly what happens to them when you develop them.
I learned the following:
1. All films are beautiful in one way or another.
2. The results are almost more dependent on HOW I use the film than what film I use.
3. I forgot about the film part, and learned to SEE, which is infinitely more important than what film you use.

Please don't make the same mistake I did. What I thought I was going to find was a silver bullet to better photography. All I found was confusion. When I started using just one film and one developer, all of a sudden things started falling into place.
I also took the advice that "you don't really know what's going on in the film developing stage until you start printing your negatives often". That was another statement worth its weight in gold. You learn two things from doing that:
1. You really understand what negative density and contrast in the negative does to the final print! Until you print your negs, you have no way of knowing this!
2. You become a much better printer.

With that said, I am a believer of using the best materials, and I'm talking about film, chemistry, and paper. Ilford, Kodak, Fuji are, in my opinion, a notch above the rest when it comes to quality control and films. All of their films are great. The others are behind them in quality, but they offer emulsions that are of equal beauty. But remember that the differences between film strips/sheets are just as dependent on how you use them as the material itself to get a certain look.

Good luck, please learn from my mistake.

- Thomas

What he said.

Steve

Sirius Glass · Sep 26, 2008

hywel said:
I somewhat disagree with the mainstream thought of sticking with one film and developer whilst learning and think it would be great if there was, or this forum could generate, some sort of list of the basics of all the films out there.
Hywel

Not what he said.

hywel said:
My thinking is that there are some films that are very alike. HP5+ and Tri-X. Anyone who honestly cares which they have in their camera isn't asking questions on this forum. And there's no doubt that nobody who is learning should be trying one if they've tried the other thinking that it'll make a jot of difference to anything. But there are some films that are very different. Tri-X and TMax100 for example. Someone who has done as all the good photojournalists did and stuck Tri-X in his 35mm camera and just isn't happy with the grain really should try TMax or Delta films and try them sooner rather than later.
Hywel

What he said.

markbarendt · Sep 26, 2008

keithwms said:
Yes it is, but it is work that everyone should do at least once!

I don't know if that's true Keith, IMO it's definately not the first or second or third or twenty seventh thing to do, personally it's something I might try after I've got the Delta 400 I use all figured out.

In my mind broad spectrum experimentation should probably be done after getting a handle on how things work and that can be done with any good film.

When a limit is reached that constrains the shooting, developing, or printing process, try something different to address that issue. When there is a real issue identified skill will be high enough to understand, before that ?????

Sirius Glass · Sep 26, 2008

All seriousness aside.

On my return to black and white photography, after more years than I would like to admit, I tried to do a survey like you proposed. I visited Kodak and Ilford websites and looked at there product comparison charts. Since I wanted smaller apertures and the ability to shoot lower light levels without as much tripod use, I choose ISO 400 over ISO 100. [Your choice might be different, but that would not be wrong.]

Then I chose Kodak over Ilford. Why? Because I was more familiar with Kodak. [Your choice might be different, but that would not be wrong.] That said I was buying Tri-X ISO 400.

Which developer? I saw that of the Kodak chemicals XTOL gave the finest grain for Tri-X. [Your choice might be different, but that would not be wrong.]

After shooting a lot of film I am now going to try a two part staining developer Pyro Roll because it can keep highlights from blowing out. [Your choice might be different, but that would not be wrong.]

Now you have a clear path via a decision tree! [Your choice might be different, but that would not be wrong.]

Steve

keithwms · Sep 26, 2008

markbarendt said:
When a limit is reached that constrains the shooting, developing, or printing process, try something different to address that issue. When there is a real issue identified skill will be high enough to understand, before that ?????

I see your point, but I think about it very differently. I don't see how you can even know what the issue is, if you haven't taken the time to explore the many different ways the same scene can be rendered by different films.

I mean, are we supposed to look at prints by other people and say, ooh I like that, what's his/her recipe? I know that's not what you are saying, Mark, but it is something that I do see in many beginning photography students: excessive willingness to get intoxicated by the success of others with particular gear/film/dev combos. And that just goes against everything I find enjoyable in photography: discovering your own vision, through your own tentative steps.

I see photography as a constant search for better ways to express ideas. I do not believe that there a be-all/do-all/end-all film, nor developer. Nor camera! I am constantly switching gear and formats. Hell, I might go to painting in a few years, I don't know.

I don't want to push this off into some broader (and vague) treatise on originality and creativity, but suffice it to say that I do very much value the different ways that different films see the same scene. For me, that is The big advantage of film relative to digital. It is my opinion that every student should first and foremost try a lot of different things and experiment... and be 100% open to the possibility that what works for them may not be the same thing that works for everybody else.

Okay, enough from me, but that is how I feel Peace to all. And, by the way, Thomas knows that I respect his work... but it is his and not mine.

NormanV · Sep 26, 2008

for me it does not matter. 30 years ago I found that I liked Tri-x and D76. Today, having just returned to photography I am using HP5 and ID11. There is not enough difference to make it important. It is the image that matters! Just keep on making pictures!!!!

Guide to BW films?

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency