Help Narrow film choices

Hi. I'm not new to B&W film, but I'm new to B&W film. What I mean is that I used to shoot the stuff by the buckets but I did not do it with a studied frame of mind and so sometimes things worked - other times they did not.
I now want to get higher end results, results that at the end will, hopefully, be closer to what I have pre-visualised.

I've been a member here almost a year and have experimented with a broad range of film. I don't feel that works for me. Its fun, sure, but I am back again at the point that it feels like a lucky stab in the dark. I feel spread too thin to learn. So with an eye towards the style I like and the realistic limitations of how I shoot I would now like to limit my film choices to two or perhaps three - hoping that over a year or two I can develop (don't ya love puns) a better eye and see if my choices work or not. I want predictability first before I get promiscuous with those little seductive 35 canisters again.

So its off to Black and White only and furthermore only high speed film as well. Feel sorry for me. I love some of the rich tones, with smooth gradations that I see on some of the best work here. I know, low iso film should be the choice. But I've been paying attention to what and how I shoot with B&W and they tend to always be low light narrow dof kinds of portraits or snaps where I feel cramped by iso 400 film as it is. I know I can't have it all (even in America????) so I'm not expecting miracles - just simply a guide to films, and one or two developers that minimize that rough texture and large grain as best as can be expected.
I've seen many tri-x shots here that are wonderful and more than I hope for.

So first, if I were to chose two films and film speeds only, with the idea of having as much versatility as can be from only two - which B&W films would be a good start.
I keep wondering about for example tri-x versus a 400 t-grain film. I thought that Tmax400 would give less grain but be less versatile as far as pushing it to 800 or a bit more. Is that correct?
If I get 400 tri-x or HP5+ am I off my rocker if I am thinking of using it from 200 to 1600? What can I expect the differences to be if one roll is shot at 200, the next at 400 and a third at say 1000? Any tips on how to shoot and develop differently this one (picked only as an example) film.

In looking at many photos here over the last six months I've come to the conclusion that I like contrast but not completely blocked up shadows. I actually like moderate to strong grain in a shot but that seems to be easy - the opposite for when you need it is the tough part so I'd like to learn.

Any tips then for films - and developers? Is my strategy a good one do you think?

Oh and which film/developer combo would be a good starting set for iso 3200 shooting?

Thanks! This place is great.

BTW ... if it makes any difference - I plan to scan my negs. I live in a small apartment nowadays and don't want to deal with a wet-darkroom.

Obviously, everyone's tastes are different.

Apart from occasional experimentation, I use Ilford PAN F (ISO 50) and Ilford HP5+ (ISO 400 but I use it at EI 200).

I develop both using Ilford LC29.

I think it is a good idea to try quite a few combinations of film and developer then settle on the two or three which you like.

As for ISO 3200, There is Ilford Delta 3200. I have some but I have not tried it yet.


Steve.

Dear Pavel,

If you get 10 photographers replying to this you'll probably have at least 30 recommendations. Here are my four...

NO small-format conventional mono film scans as well as Ilford XP2 Super (because XP2 is a dye image, not silver grain, hence no grain aliasing and Callier effect) but that limits you to 400, though you can underexpose by a stop (EI 800) and get away with it.

If you insist on conventional film, many prefer traditional films such as HP5 (my own choice) or Tri-X (my wife's), and you can get a true ISO of about 650 out of either (HP5 probably a fraction faster) in Ilford DD-X. Pushing to 1000 or even 1600 is not a major problem.

But at 1600 and beyond, you'll get more shadow detail and better tonality out of Delta 3200, true ISO in DD-X about 1250 but very good up to 2000 or so and more than usable to 10,000 and above. Kodak's equivalent, TMZ, is fractionally slower, less grainy, and (in my view) tonally quite a bit inferior. The other fast film, Fuji 1600, is less grainy still but only a whisker faster than HP5 Plus (1/3 stop at the outside).

Now wait for the next reply which will probably make COMPLETELY different recommendations. You might want to look at
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/blackwhite.html for further general thoughts on mono, scanning and more.

Edit: I'll second Steve's suggestion to try a fair range of films, rather than limiting yourself unnecessarily. A roll of every candidate, in DDX for maximum true ISO speed, still won't take long and as soon as you see the 'magic' -- which you should, in the first roll of the film that's right for you -- then your search is over.

Cheers,

Roger

Thanks gents. I am kind of in sync with your recommendations Roger and am appreciative of your experience in the subtleties. I only hesitate with the XPsuper because in the last year I've had two rolls of chromes disappear already and one had valuable stuff on it. I keep thinking on one hand that having someone else develop it might be nice and effortless but half the attraction is in doing it myself - and then if a roll disappears I only have my aging memory to blame. Does one have to ask for special processing if XP2 is exposed at 800 ? How about 1600 - is that a ruined roll?

So you are basically saying that for iso 1600 the fuji has little benefit compared to Tri-X or HP5, but best yet if one has delta 3200 (which I have twenty or so more rolls of right now - but its comparatively expensive) that it is the better choice, right? How remarkable a difference is it to shoot HP5+ at 1600 versus Delta 3200 at the same speed? I'm really interested in the details on that question.

Also how would you sum up the differences between Delta 400 and HP5+?

Thank you once again for the help. I had gotten a subscription to your site last year and read it often. It is fantastic help.

... Oh ... and .... I have been using a wide variety of films all this year. That is how, slowly, I've arrived at the decision that I will now shoot almost exclusively B&W and that is how I noticed how cramped iso 100 has been for me. Every time I load a roll of slower film I wind up wishing I could change the iso part way through. So iso 400 and up now ... so I can refine my knowledge.

As mentioned above, the best b&w film for scanning is XP2. You should give at least one roll a try and see if you like it. I use it a lot but only in 120. For traditional silver emulsions at high ISO, I've always liked Tri-X the best for the look of its grain, but HP5 is good too. Good luck.

I personally shoot a lot of Tri-X. When the need arises, I might shoot an occasional roll of Plus-X or PanF+ or TMZ. I've been happy with it. I know everybody says stick with one film and developer, which I've kind of been doing, but I haven't quite gotten to the point of tweaking development times and things. Whenever I end up shooting one of the other films, they always come out pretty nice and printable... I use XTOL by the way.

When you ask this question, as you did, you are going to get a whole lot of different opinions and you must recognize that involved with those opinions are individual preferences. Now opinions are fine, if you know the guy or gal, they are your brother or sister, and you know how they think, what they like, and how they work.

Unfortunately I am an orphan, I don't like my siblings, and I don't trust anyone with something as important as my work...I don't give a darn if they claim to be producing grain free 32X40 images from iSo 1600 35 mm film pushed to 16,000. That they further claim to be the second coming of Christ and the best thing since sliced bread. I want to see the work...I don't believe anyone on this stuff. Not Roger Hicks, not John Sexton, not Bruce Burnbaum, and I sure as hell would not believe that character named Donald Miller.

So look at what some people who can hang prints on the wall are shooting. If you like what they do, then you might...notice I said might be able to someday replicate their results...if you work long and hard and diligently and don't hook up with the wrong person's evaluation, recommendation, strongly held characterization or for that matter opinion (no matter how strongly expressed). In other words opinions are like lower body orifices and simply that...everyone has them.

So I won't waste your time or my time in trying to tell you what to use.

My preference is Pan F+ and HP5+ for me, with Xtol for developing.
When I cant afford that, Pan F+ and Agfapan APX 400.
When I cant afford that, ERA Pan 100 and APX 400...
And when I cant afford that I just use ERA Pan 100 and I live with 100ISO.
The advantage of testing a variety of film is you can have a first and secondary preference, which in my case has helped me in not always having enough to buy the film I want. Like Roger mentioned, it's one of the most individual parts of photography - I use slower speeds more often than higher speeds, but last year it was the exact opposite.
I used XP2Super exclusively for ages and never had any problems with it - find a good local 1 hour lab and it's a breeze. It does scan noticeably better than traditional films, Pan F+ even ends up kinda blurry on my scanner.

Hey, anyone remember when 400ISO was high speed, instead of 3200? I have an old magazine outlining techniques for city night photography with miraculous new 400ISO colour film.

Dear Pavel,

Does one have to ask for special processing if XP2 is exposed at 800 ? How about 1600 - is that a ruined roll?

No in both cases -- but the 1600 will be pretty marginal. A lot will depend on the subject and the metering.

How remarkable a difference is it to shoot HP5+ at 1600 versus Delta 3200 at the same speed? I'm really interested in the details on that question.

The HP5 is pushed 1-2/3 stops from ISO 650 in DD-X, and the Delta 3200 is pushed 1/3 stop from ISO 1250, so it's LOTS more shadow detail.

Also how would you sum up the differences between Delta 400 and HP5+?

Tonality. My favourite description of HP5, courtesy of someone whose name I have unforgivably forgotten, is 'Like Casablanca. The film, not the place.'

Thank you once again for the help. I had gotten a subscription to your site last year and read it often. It is fantastic help.

Thanks for the kind words -- and for subscribing!

... Oh ... and .... I have been using a wide variety of films all this year. That is how, slowly, I've arrived at the decision that I will now shoot almost exclusively B&W and that is how I noticed how cramped iso 100 has been for me. Every time I load a roll of slower film I wind up wishing I could change the iso part way through. So iso 400 and up now ... so I can refine my knowledge.

Have you considered faster lenses? I regularly use f/1.4 and f/1.5, though I find f/1,2 and f/1 a bit too fast for many applications (zero depth of field).

I'll heartily second Don's advice not to place undue faith in anyone; the advice above is given on the basis that you have to start somewhere. I'd add, too, that it's usually a good idea to start as near the mainstream as possible. Beware of those who swear by film coated by Romanian virgins at full moon, and processed in a mixture of adder venom and humming-bird blood, because a lot of the time, they're getting good results despite their materials, not because of them. This is one reason why I might disagree with him about looking at what people have 'on the wall', at least on line. Another is that by the time it's been scanned and shown on a monitor, many a good picture loses its charm, and many an indifferent picture looks undeservedly good.

One more thing: a good local minilab will very seldom lose your films: I assume your problems were with mail order. BUT, most minilabs use a stabilizer, not a water wash, so the stability of the negs will be compromised unless you request your films uncut and re-wash at home. Then again, it's amazingly easy to process C41 yourself with a CPE-2 (silly-cheap second hand), and with chromogenics you can also give a slight push if you feel like it.

Cheers,

Roger

Fleath said:

Hey, anyone remember when 400ISO was high speed, instead of 3200? I have an old magazine outlining techniques for city night photography with miraculous new 400ISO colour film.

Click to expand...

Well, when High Speed Ektachrome (160 ASA) was a speed king, available only in 20-exposure rolls because 36-exposure would cost too much, yep... And I remember an article in Popular or Modern where they had pushed 2475 Recording Film to EI 10,000, just to show it could be done...

On the other hand I also remember when you could buy true ISO 1000 colour slide film from Agfa: no push processing required (Ferrania/Scotch/3M 1000D and 640T were earlier, but much inferior for most applications, though tremendous fun when they worked). I forget who made the ISO 3200 print film -- Konica, I think -- but I got a few decent images from it at EI 2000-2500.

Cheers,

Roger

The first thing you should do, depending on what types of subjects you are shooting is to buy a good tripod. No other piece of equipment will improve your photography like a tripod; it makes you slow down and look thru the viewfinder long.

Second, if you love those smooth, rich tones, move to a larger format camera. The bigger the neg, the better the photo.

Third, use the slowest film you can or want to.

Just my $.02

Thanks all. Jim - I've got three tripods right now. When I get around to it ... they will be sold. I just like to walk light and grab quick candid shots or when doing portraits to move freely. Just my way. I've got fast glass as well all under 2.8 and lenses like the Nikon 135 F2.0 DC - and I still find that I want more speed.
I guess I just like to shoot in caves ... with no flash.

I think I've decided to go with HP5+ and Tri-x for the next little while.
I will play around with those two to see how to get the best results out of these films at various speeds. Fuji neopan 400 lures me as well due to the low cost but the few I've shot up to now I did not like as much as the tri-x I've played with. Just today I found, to my amazement that a 100 foot roll of HP5+ can be had for 39 bucks. Man ... that is something in the neighborhood of 2.10 per 36 exposures - is it not? That would make it easy to shoot film and worry little about each frame.

This is a sample of work in which the tonality and the "look" inspires me.
Shot by Sanders McNew on Tri-x but with medium format so I expect that 35 will suffer a bit?
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
All of Sanders stuff is fantastic in my book.

Try the Neopan 400 in Xtol and PCAT-both excellent with rich tones and good grain (PCAT is great with pretty much anything).

Pavel+ said:

Thanks all. Jim - I've got three tripods right now. When I get around to it ... they will be sold.

Click to expand...

Dear Pavel,

Don't sell 'em all. In fact, given how little a second-hand tripod is worth, think hard about selling any of 'em. You may yet go back on a tripod jag in a few years, months, weeks or days. Frances and I have about 15 tripods (well, I've been doing this for 41 years...) and at least four or five of then receive reasonably frequent use. As do a couple of the 6 monopods we have...

Cheers,

Roger

Black Dog said:

Try the Neopan 400 in Xtol and PCAT

Click to expand...

What is PCAT?

Pavel+ said:

Thanks all. Jim - I've got three tripods right now. When I get around to it ... they will be sold. I just like to walk light and grab quick candid shots or when doing portraits to move freely.

Click to expand...

Start by keeping one in the trunk of your car. You will be surprised how much more often you will use it than if it is in your closet.

Steve

If you want speed, Tri-X/Acufine is a classic look. I rate TX 400/Acufine at 800--

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

You can probably get 1000 in HP5+, if you like the look of HP5+.

I think of Tri-X as emphasizing the sense of line and form. The tonality of Tri-X is interesting at the extremes of the range.

HP5+ is more about smooth gradation. The action is more in the middle of the range.

My preference is the Tri-X look.

Thanks everyone. Stever ... but I only drive my car about every three weeks.
I walk to work, I walk to do my groceries and I walk ... just for the heck of it.
I actually have not driven my car now for two weeks since it hasn't rained. The last time was when I took the kids to the beach. I love it like that.
So I will try the trick about keeping one of the tripods in the car.

I went to the store to buy a bunch of tri-x today. (walking distance has two local shops - did I mention how I love where I live) and while there saw a used Nikon 105 f 2.0 DC. So I couldn't buy except one roll ... cause now I'm broke! But life sure is good!

i do most of my work with neopan 400 in rodinal nowadays, and i think its worth giving a try because it is a distinctive combo. yes, its somewhat grainy in rodinal, but neopan has a lovely grain structure in the first place and is not as grainy as many other 400speed films. the resulting prints are very crisp. i have used this combo in both 35mm and 120 to good result. but if you are a grainophobe, please disregard this entry!

I enjoy using the chromogenic B&W's (e.g. XP-2 and TCN-400) but mainly because of the "ease" of readily available C-41 processing. I really don't think they will give you what you want.

I'm hard pressed to make a recommendation b/w Ilford's HP5+ and Kodak's Tri-X (i.e. the "pro" B&W's) mainly because I've yet to tryout the Fuji's NeoPan. And also because I know that to be really sure, I have to start "souping" my own. Even the little lab I use, where he personally develops the film, shows scratches, dust and nicks when scanned at 4000dpi in my Nikon scanner.

We may be at a crossroads in that the scanners are so detailed that they are revealing development flaws that would not ordinarily be noticed from an enlarged negative? I'm talking about "nits" that could be readily "healed" in PS (if we did that kind of thing). I don't know - but maybe others do.

I've used mostly TriX for, er, decades, never found a reason not to.

On the tangental subject of tripods, I'm not up to acrobatic 'street' stuff anymore, use the big Ries from my old 8x10 days more and more. It's a gawd awful fifteen-pounder and looks silly with a tiny Bogen ball head and O serie on top, but if a subject isn't too far away, this huge, pain-in-the-ass tripod, properly planted, guarantees – if not a good image, an unfuzzy negative with maximum DOF.

Lighter tripods are certainly better moving far and fast but, when you can make it work, big and heavy can't be beat – particularly if you need one to steady yourself as well as the camera ... He said, wishing he could still leap over tall buildings.

PS - Going down to southern Geogia in a couple of weeks to make some no-rush, hot-summer landscape/Okefenokee swamp negatives! It's been a very dry season and the gators have had more than enough to eat in the deeper, prey-filled sloughs, so I figure they won't want me after they tire of nibbling on the Ries.

If I were to be stranded with only one b&w film choice for medium and large format, it would definitely be hp5+. It's extremely versatile and I adore the grain.

Roger Hicks said:

Frances and I have about 15 tripods.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should start a 'How many tripods do you own?' thread!



Steve.

On the tangent a bit more (cause who knows I may have to eat my tripod words one day ) .... do you gents use a tripod even around the cities, shooting architecture lets say? Do you ever get hassled for it ... or do you get a permit?

How do you carry the stuff? I tend to carry a belt, a pouch hanging off it and two Low-pro lens bags. I've got 11 Nikkors but am finding that lately I am trying to lighten and simplify life by trying to make carying as easy as possible. So right now for example I leave my 70-200 at home due to weight. I walk with a 35-70, 55 macro and either a 85 or the 135. I often use a tele-converter on the 135. The image holds up surprisingly well stopped down just a tad. I miss the longer stuff sometimes but that (I think) may be my lack of creativity.

Bruce. So do you feel fully confident about the well fed gators?