Guide to BW films?

[markbarendt]

Well said Norman

 

[cesrig]

Thanks all or your responses so far, you've been very helpful.

 

[phenix]

People, with all the respect I hold for you, my understanding is that this guy needs an ABC to start experimenting, not advises like “experiment different films” or the opposite “stick with one film”. So, very basic, here is the ABC that worked for me:

1) There are 2 kinds of film: traditional (old, classic) grain, and T-grain (T from thin). Traditional grain films render more contrast, more black and white and less midtones, due to their single layer coarser grain. I usually compare their tonality with B-series pencils (in extremis charcoal). The classics in this group are: Pan-F, Tri-X, FP4+, HP5+. On the other side, T-grain films render more midtones and less pure black and white, otherwise said more pastels, do to their multi (2~3) layer finer grain. I compare their tonality to the H-series pencils (in extremis metallic tones). The classics in this group are: T-Max and Delta series.

2) There is not only the film, but the developer too, and here there is place for lot of experimentation. Film manufacturers recommend special developers for their T-grain films – use these first. With classic grain films, you can experiment with the rest of available developers. This is for the beginning – later you can cross films and developers of different types, but don’t try that in the beginning as it can confuse you.

3) You also have to experiment with the two film groups in different shooting situations and for different themes. What will you chose for portraits, for landscape, townscape, foggy mornings, cloudy days, etc.? Try to guess the mood you’ll like to get in the print, than chose the film and developer, the lens filter, to pull or to push, etc. I suggest you to have two cameras with you, loaded each with a type of film (classic and T-grain), and shot the same image with both. Compare later and chose the one that is more consistent with what you expected. Learn and stick with it (at least for 2-3 years).

4) Finally for this ABC, keep in mind a basic rule: the smaller the print, the higher the contrast, and the larger the print, the smaller the contrast. Do the opposite and people will treat you for a tourist – there’s not much place for experiments here. And this rule is also consistent with the size of the grain: larger grain for smaller prints and smaller grain for larger prints. Considering the size of the final print, you should chose the right film: classic grain for smaller prints (I would say up to 11x14 and exceptionally 12x16), and T-grain for prints starting at 11x14 and going up to a wall size).

These basic landmarks helped me a lot in the beginning, so they might help you too (if you didn’t exceed already the ABC stage). Good luck!

 

[keithwms]

I agree phenix; fair enough.

You cannot turn a t-grained film into a traditional-grain film by changing the developer, nor can you affect the spectral response of the film, nor its reciprocity characteristics, nor any number of other elements that we variously describe as "feel" or "personality."

Norman, with all due respect, you are comparing two film/dev combos (tri-X/D76 and hp5+/ID11) that 99.9% of us would see a print from and not know which film was used. You are comparing apples to very slightly different apples, in my honest opinion

I go back and forth between traditional and t-grain films; to me there is a night and day difference between them in terms of edge contrast and the role of grain in the image. Don't believe me? Go to the galleries and compare the t-grian work to the traditional....

 

[cesrig]

phenix, thanks for the basics. Cleared up one or two things for me

 

[AgX]

phenix,

This is going off topic, but in a few words: the number of layers used is not correlated to the kind of crystal (grain as you put it).

 

[phenix]

Welcome ‘cesrig’.

‘AgX’, I didn't know classic grain emulsions could be coated in more than one layer, sorry. Is this a current thing? Could you name some examples? Instead, I’m positive about T-grain emulsions being coated in multiple layers (usually 3, if I’m not wrong).

 

[JBrunner]

While black and white film has many layers, as far as I know they all, old and new, have only one emulsion layer. PE would know for sure.

 

[AgX]

To begin with I have got my problems with the definition of `classic emulsion´. The most vague would be: an emulsion containing a rather wide spectrum of crystal shapes. Or: anything but a pure tabular-crystal emulsion.

Furthermore the manufacturers mostly don't offer much information on the crystals used. Think of the discussion what the core-shell (an Ilford-only term) crystals of Ilford really are. The same is true for the layers.

Of the current b&w films it is to my knowledge only stated by Filmotec for their Orwo TC 27 that it has got 2 halide layers. (Maco stated that their Rollei R3 has got the same emulsion but the same time speak of three layers...)

The late Agfapan APX 400 S (not identical to the current Agfa ASP 400 S) was stated by by Agfa to have two halide layers.
Interestingly it seems for the emulsion to be identical to the late Agfapan APX 400!

Edit: I just found an Agfa datasheet confirming that APX 400 has got 2 layers.


Coating two or more halide layers can have different reasons:

-) to avoid to have to make a single precipitation with all neccessary features, or to avoid blending several precipitations into one
-) to enable to steer development by means of its dynamics (diffusion time on its own, or added by inertia the developing agent)
-) to avoid incompatibilities of emulsion components
-) the inability to coat sufficient halide in a single pass (historic)

 

[Mark Antony]

I would guess that they had more than one layer for a variety of reasons but ones I though most likely were to allow wider exposure latitude. Another to put different dyes to extend red sensitivity, in effect one layer being slightly more blue sensitive the other red. The trick being to blend so no trough appears in the green part of the spectral curve.
I could be wrong (often is the case) I'm sure others will correct or affirm my understanding.
Mark

 

[AgX]

Mark,
the issue of the exposure range is (was?) surely one for using different emulsions (whether blended or coated seperately). And with those incompatibilities I actually thought of sensitizing dyes.
But I don't understand your reference to the green part of the spectrum.

 

[keithwms]

So, not to disrupt this enlightening technical discussion .... but let me restate my original admonition:

Find out for yourself what the difference between the traditionals and the t-grained films are, through the image.

That is the the advice I would give the O.P. on this particular point. I would advise you to shoot the same scene with, say, fp4+ and delta 100. Maybe Simon can set you up with a sample kit! Anyway shoot both and then pay close attention to grain structure, edge contrast, overall feeling of sharpness... these are totally different media, I tell you. There is no freaking way you can get a trad.-grained film to mimick what a delta or a tmax or an acros does, no way. On that point I am resolute. I use all three, for different purposes.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear all,

I am a great believer in "the camera or the film will not the 'photographer' make" .....but, while you are learning I would use the standards FP4+ / HP5+ or Plus X / Tri X : Then when you can expose and process well, and you are happy... then experiment to your hearts content and 'fill your boots' as we say...to get what 'you' are looking for....PM me your home address and I will send you a mono printing manual..because then it starts all over again...which paper etc, etc

Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited ;

 

[Perry Way]

this guy needs an ABC to start experimenting

Yes, and there are more readers here who are in the same sort of camp. I am returning to film after a long long vacation of 20+ years. I am soaking up your comments!

1) There are 2 kinds of film: traditional (old, classic) grain, and T-grain (T from thin). Traditional grain films render more contrast, more black and white and less midtones, due to their single layer coarser grain. I usually compare their tonality with B-series pencils (in extremis charcoal). The classics in this group are: Pan-F, Tri-X, FP4+, HP5+. On the other side, T-grain films render more midtones and less pure black and white, otherwise said more pastels, do to their multi (2~3) layer finer grain. I compare their tonality to the H-series pencils (in extremis metallic tones). The classics in this group are: T-Max and Delta series.

I know Ilford makes Pan-F, which interestingly is the film I think I want to begin using soon as my camera arrives. I like super fine grain, and thinking this is my begining point. But who makes T-Max and Delta?

3) You also have to experiment with the two film groups in different shooting situations and for different themes. What will you chose for portraits, for landscape, townscape, foggy mornings, cloudy days, etc.? Try to guess the mood you’ll like to get in the print, than chose the film and developer, the lens filter, to pull or to push, etc. I suggest you to have two cameras with you, loaded each with a type of film (classic and T-grain), and shot the same image with both. Compare later and chose the one that is more consistent with what you expected. Learn and stick with it (at least for 2-3 years).

Now I know you're using your noodle because this is the kind of advice that benefits experimentation. To have something to compare with. Apples and apples. The same lighting and subject matter and focal point. Then the difference in the negatives answers the question. I have two exact same camera bodies on order, for this very reason.

4) Finally for this ABC, keep in mind a basic rule: the smaller the print, the higher the contrast, and the larger the print, the smaller the contrast. Do the opposite and people will treat you for a tourist – there’s not much place for experiments here. And this rule is also consistent with the size of the grain: larger grain for smaller prints and smaller grain for larger prints. Considering the size of the final print, you should chose the right film: classic grain for smaller prints (I would say up to 11x14 and exceptionally 12x16), and T-grain for prints starting at 11x14 and going up to a wall size).

Now, from what I'm reading elsewhere, Pan-F has the finest grain there is. And you would say that makes a better smaller print candidate because T-grain is more midtone, right? You're not talking at all about the grain size.. ?

Thanks a lot for your input. I enjoyed reading your post 4 or 5 times.

 

[CBG]

... Yes it is, but it is work that everyone should do at least once!

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

I'm very anti recipe too, but I wonder if a rank beginner can even begin to see the differences till he/she has a "baseline" of having one process down pat (or nearly so).

I'd urge a beginner to keep it simple for a while - one film, one developer etc. till it's second nature or till a fundamental reason to change comes along. Then, make the change with no regrets and really start to look at the differences one can attain with different means.

C

 

[michaelbsc]

3. I forgot about the film part, and learned to SEE, which is infinitely more important than what film you use.
...
- Thomas

Bingo! *THIS* is the magic bullet.

I've got my fair share of technically excellent boring images. When I die, I'm sure my daughter will throw them out. I hope that there are at least a few that are worth saving, regardless of what film they're on.

 

[michaelbsc]

I read through the discussion of "Don't try too much" and "No, try a bunch to start out" and I think I see how both sides are answering different questions. Both keithwms and phenix made good points. Let me throw this other thought into the mix, and tell me if I'm helping or out to lunch.

Move for a minute out of film and into cooking, first so that we get far enough away from film to clear the preconceived notions, and because cooking has a lot of combinations that the person can vary. Also, please realize that I'm not talking about a culinary arts degreed chef here, because they really do have to do everything.

Now, before one can take up cooking, one must decide what they're going to work on, desserts, main courses, salads, breads, etc. There's a lot of different kitchen areas one can become proficient at with enough work. But if you don't have *ANY* idea what you want to start with, you might very well go to a local "Taste of the local town" even and sample scores of things, Greek, Italian, French, Middle Eastern, desserts, pasta, who knows what. This, I think, is the very, very beginning stage where one just might need to try a whole bunch of things. But once you decide, "I'm going to learn to bake bread," then you've got your work cut out for you. (I know one guy who's spent 50 years with bread, so it ain't all that easy if you get really deep into it.) But when you start trying to bake bread, then you probably need to decide one type of bread and stick with it a few times rather than trying to put sourdough, yeast read, and soda quick bread all in the same oven hoping to figure out what's happening with all of them simultaneously.

So, here some of us are telling the new people don't jump around because we assume they have already made a decision to do "X" (bake bread) while other are telling them to try a few things first because they are assuming the person is still in the tasting stage and hasn't decided if they're baking bread or making pasta.

I think both answers may be correct, just for different stages in the decision making process.

MB

 

[Perry Way]

But if you don't have *ANY* idea what you want to start with, you might very well go to a local "Taste of the local town" even and sample scores of things, Greek, Italian, French, Middle Eastern, desserts, pasta, who knows what. This, I think, is the very, very beginning stage where one just might need to try a whole bunch of things. But once you decide, "I'm going to learn to bake bread," then you've got your work cut out for you. (I know one guy who's spent 50 years with bread, so it ain't all that easy if you get really deep into it.) But when you start trying to bake bread, then you probably need to decide one type of bread and stick with it a few times rather than trying to put sourdough, yeast read, and soda quick bread all in the same oven hoping to figure out what's happening with all of them simultaneously.

That was very well put Michael. You sound like you've practiced at mediation!

As for me, I am very good at a few styles of cuisine (Indian/Pakis, Lebenese, Chinese, French, Thai, Italian, Mexican (Sonoran, Baja, Monterey, Sinaloa, Guerrerro, Jalisco), Yankee and Southern cooking. But I don't do any breads at all!

Oh wait, this is photography.. I forgot momentarily...

Say I have a pointed question for you or others. Say I wanted two films as the best starting points. I'm all into super fine grain. I do not like grainy anything. I like to shoot in two lighting conditions. Top of the day full sun in sky and light to medium cloudy, and foggy dim light. I like to shoot mostly nature. I don't believe people belong in fine art photography, but that's just my thing. Well, maybe a portrait can be consider fine art, but if the subject is mostly the great outdoors, then people don't belong in it at all, but animals do! I like long exposures with water and I like capturing huge breakers smashing up against the shoreline rocks. So this to me means I need a quality low ASA and a quality high ASA. So I've been thinking Pan-F for the low, but what about the high? I'm not a portrait dude. I don't have to distinguish an infinite amount of midtones. But I'm not stark black and white contrasty either. From those specifications am I on the right track with the Pan-F? And if so, what about the upper end of the range? I'm thinking I do not need anything higher than 400 ASA. I am way okay with hauling a tripod with me in my backpack camera bag, or lashed onto my touring bicycle or mountain bike. So I don't need that insane 2000+ ASA stuff I've briefly read about here/there.

 

[phenix]

...I need a quality low ASA and a quality high ASA. So I've been thinking Pan-F for the low, but what about the high? ...I'm thinking I do not need anything higher than 400 ASA.

HP5+: less grainy than the Tri-X, and, by what you described, it is just what you are looking for.

 

[phenix]

...But who makes T-Max and Delta?

Kodark and Illfrog?

Now, from what I'm reading elsewhere, Pan-F has the finest grain there is. And you would say that makes a better smaller print candidate because T-grain is more midtone, right? You're not talking at all about the grain size.. ?

Indeed, Pan-F is more suitable for smaller to medium sized prints. For large ones, I would chose a fine T-grain film.
While the fine grain is a must for large prints, it doesn’t prevent you to do small ones too. However, the high contrast of classic grain emulsions makes esthetically difficult to go too large in print, no matter how fine the grain is. A small room looks better if painted in vivid colors, while a large room looks better if painted in pastel colors. Could you imagine a very large room painted in vivid colors (furniture included)? – it would be a hell! On the other hand, there’s the Scandinavian style too, of small, white and creamy painted (including the furniture) rooms. But remember the Scandinavian light before thinking of it as a low contrast scene: it isn’t! – rather a high contrast one, but in high-key.

 

[phenix]

In addition to the ABC to film types (some clarifications):

In T-grain, “T=thin” means rather flat, than fine, small. This is why multi-layering is a must with T-grain emulsions. This grain develops more in 2D (in the film’s plan), rather than in 3D like the classic grain (also in the depth of the emulsion layer). All these are important when exposing the film, and less when enlarging it. And when exposing, especially when shooting wide-open, because the light beams are hitting the emulsion under lot of different angles (while, when closing down the aperture, the light beams get more organized, in a conical flood).

In these conditions, the classic grain, with its 3D like crystals, will create small half-darkened areas around the grains, lowering the acutance (the definition of the edge between light and shadow). This doesn’t create half-tones as expected, just the feeling (under a loupe) that the image is made of agglomerated powder (very similar to the impressionist technique in painting). This is why, the classic grain can provide deep blacks and textured half-tones (instead of continuous grays), which also increases the contrast, while lowering the acutance.

On the other hand, the T-grain, with its 2D like crystals, will create far less half-darkened areas around grains when shooting, even wide-open. This increases the acutance, while the half-tones are created through superposition of more or less of the flat grains. The feeling is that the T-grain film provides very reach and continuous (not powder-like, less textured) gray tones, with higher acutance, but also lower contrast.

 

[Mark Antony]

The film I would recommend.
For slow film with fine grain.
Adox CHS25 Art (25) Ilford pan F (50), Fuji Acros(100), Kodak T-Max (100) and if you are using 35mm Rollei Tech pan (20-32)
Fast films T- Max 400 or Delta (400) and even possibly C41 XP2 (grainless)
Mark

 

[Perry Way]

the classic grain, with its 3D like crystals, will create small half-darkened areas around the grains, lowering the acutance (the definition of the edge between light and shadow). This doesn’t create half-tones as expected, just the feeling...... This is why, the classic grain can provide deep blacks and textured half-tones (instead of continuous grays), which also increases the contrast, while lowering the acutance.

Oh man, what a great explanation and I know exactly what you're talking about. All one need do is view Google maps and select the satelite view and go find a city like New York with a lot of skyscrapers and blow it up until you can see the windows. The shadows casted from the tall buildings makes a super contrasty effect. This is why fine grain has less contrast when wide open than more grainy films because being finer the little grain skyscrapers (if you will) are a lot closer to the ground and cast less shado.

I noticed back when I was into photography in my youth and I wondered at length as to the why's - why would a faster film look smoother overall, and that has to do with the aperature stopped down more on the average therefore more focused beams and less shadows. Eureka! Its all becoming clear now.

A lot has happened with films in the 25 years that have transpired, and why I am appreciating this dialogue so much! I am thinking I should get me a few rolls of the T-grain type film and shoot them this weekend and have it professionally processed as I am not yet ready with my darkroom construction and aquisition of chemicals and papers and whatnot. Then see how I like one versus another.

On the other hand, the T-grain, with its 2D like crystals, will create far less half-darkened areas around grains when shooting, even wide-open. This increases the acutance, while the half-tones are created through superposition of more or less of the flat grains. The feeling is that the T-grain film provides very reach and continuous (not powder-like, less textured) gray tones, with higher acutance, but also lower contrast.

Man this makes a whole lot more sense to me now. I had always wondered why a photograph taken of a solid color with almost no color variation (think concrete patio) would wind up being so damn grainy (back in the old days). I can't wait to give a trial run with some of the T-grain film. It may not be as accurate per se, but it will be smoother and thus.. (IMHO) be more fine-art than some grainy photo that is spot on sharp. Thank you so much for this explanation!

 

[markbarendt]

phenix, you rock!

I now understand, technically, why I might choose, artistically, to shoot Traditional Grain vs. T-grain and wide open vs. stopped down. The look isn't just about the film.

 

[Perry Way]

Hey guys, I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread. All of your experience is really helpful to people whether you think someone else outdid you or not. I came back here to say I got busy this morning. My Canons are still enroute, as yet not delivered. But I wanted to get rockin and rollin so, I visited all the photography shops here in San Luis Obispo, and got me some chemicals and a much smaller inversion stainless tank than the one I have which was one of those big huge plastic ones with a resizable spool, and I bought some 100 and 400 Delta, and a changing bag, and then I visited the local Craigslist site and found me a cheep Minolta that I could easily offer a much lower amount on (sweet deal, X700 with two zoom lenses, a camera bag, and a vivitar zoom flash unit and some old lead bag that is supposedly x-ray proof (ha! that won't be used... thanks to Homeland Security, I refuse to fly anywhere, period, end of story). Anyhow, long story longer, I shot a roll around a regional park I like to mountain bike in, went home, got busy with the chemicals and timer and all, and so far so good! I want you all to know that I am the kind of guy if there's too many options I'll sit around hemin' and hawin' weighing and balancing the situation until my whole philosophy on life is changed. So, thanks to your help here I got my ass in gear today, got busy and made it happen. Now, part two for me will be the darkroom. Must visit Home Depot or the like, seal material around the door, its a must, and safe light - almost bought one today, thought I did actually, but got home it's not in bag so I guess I didn't. What else? Oh... yeah, something for the trays to position over the tub... I'm almost there! Maybe I can do this all tomorrow!

Thanks again guys!