ISO 400 b&W films to consider

[Andrew O'Neill]

H
P
5
!

 

[lylefk]

Are you developing your own film? Are you shooting with a strobe? What camera are you using? How deep are you diving?.

You might continue to shoot color so you have the best of both worlds if you intend to scan and print. Here are three BW that were converted from Ektachrome color slide film. The first two were with strobes. I'm not sure about the third. It might have been Ektachrome ISO 200 and only 100 ISO is available today. But my point is converting to BW allows you to consider different print options.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157627032961729

I'll be sending it in for development, likely to Richards. No strobe, natural light, wide angle environmental stuff. Light beams, naked girl, etc. I just picked up a freshly serviced Nikonos V and 15mm. All freediving, so while I can go 100' pretty readily, I don't expect a model with no fins or mask to go much further than 40'. Much deeper than that isn't too useful with natural light anyway. We've got a shipwreck with the mast at 35', that's about the deepest I think I can hope for in this series. Depending on the location and time of day, I should be able to get away with ISO 200 sometimes as well.

I shoot digital for a living as a landscape/underwater/wildlife/ocean guy, so a big draw for me here is to keep things simple and streamlined and fun. I am pretty burned out on focus stacking, exposure bracketing and hours upon hours of editing. I want to get back to shooting in the way that made me fall in love with it to begin with. That means (for me), shooting black and white in camera. Less worry about a perfect image (I get that I'm being a bit hypocritical wanting fine grain and sharpness here) and the technical things and more focus on the moment. Unfortunately a darkroom isn't in the cards, so it will be the forbidden hybrid process from there but I don't intend to mess with them much.

Thanks for the thoughtful questions and reply!

Lyle

 

[lylefk]

Thanks everyone for chiming in, I appreciate the conversation and ideas!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I am pretty burned out on focus stacking,

What's focus stacking when it's at home? (As my late Great Uncle Harry up in Manchester area would say! )

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Huh? The question asked was... are there others I should consider. Folks offered their suggestions of other film to consider.

Indeed!
The OP asked for 400 iso films OTHER THAN T-Maxes, Deltas and XP2s, which rules out Kodak and Ilford (except for Hp5+).
What remains?
Foma.

 

[BrianShaw]

CatLabs 320... that’s in the neighborhood of 400.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I am pretty burned out on focus stacking,

What's focus stacking when it's at home?)

Google a confocal microscope. Now imagine doing the same thing with a landscape or model shot to get f/32 DOF and f/5.6 shutter speed. Or think of bracketing, only you grab the wrong ring and bracket the focus, then mask the blurry parts of each frame and multi-print the sharp bits. It's actually possible to do in the darkroom, it's just (usually) more work than its worth compared to setting up a view camera and using movements to get the focus where you want it in the first place.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Google a confocal microscope. Now imagine doing the same thing with a landscape or model shot to get f/32 DOF and f/5.6 shutter speed. Or think of bracketing, only you grab the wrong ring and bracket the focus, then mask the blurry parts of each frame and multi-print the sharp bits. It's actually possible to do in the darkroom, it's just (usually) more work than its worth compared to setting up a view camera and using movements to get the focus where you want it in the first place.

I think I'll stick with my view camera.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I think I'll stick with my view camera.

Me too.

Graphic View, Componon 150mm f/5.6, .EDU Ultra 400, Xtol replenished stock. f/32 at 1/50, front rise, tilt and swing

 

[grat]

Focus stacking is most useful to me when shooting macro-- by shifting the focus a small increment at a time, you can get virtually unlimited depth-of-field for your macro shot. My DSLR will do most of the work for me (taking the stack of images, shifting the focus slightly for each one). Most software packages will now extract the "sharp" sections of each photo in the stack, and merge them into one.

It's really impressive to watch, and it's great when you get a good result-- but then you realize that the camera and the image editor did all the work, and all you did was compose and press a button.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'll be sending it in for development, likely to Richards. No strobe, natural light, wide angle environmental stuff. Light beams, naked girl, etc. I just picked up a freshly serviced Nikonos V and 15mm. All freediving, so while I can go 100' pretty readily, I don't expect a model with no fins or mask to go much further than 40'. Much deeper than that isn't too useful with natural light anyway. We've got a shipwreck with the mast at 35', that's about the deepest I think I can hope for in this series. Depending on the location and time of day, I should be able to get away with ISO 200 sometimes as well.

I shoot digital for a living as a landscape/underwater/wildlife/ocean guy, so a big draw for me here is to keep things simple and streamlined and fun. I am pretty burned out on focus stacking, exposure bracketing and hours upon hours of editing. I want to get back to shooting in the way that made me fall in love with it to begin with. That means (for me), shooting black and white in camera. Less worry about a perfect image (I get that I'm being a bit hypocritical wanting fine grain and sharpness here) and the technical things and more focus on the moment. Unfortunately a darkroom isn't in the cards, so it will be the forbidden hybrid process from there but I don't intend to mess with them much.

Thanks for the thoughtful questions and reply!

Lyle

Sounds like intense fun. If I was still diving and looking for BW, I'd select Tmax 400 for the speed and sharpness and tones. You might consider a contrast filter to "see" better. But I wouldn't know which to recommend. Check with a dive shop camera place. Insert the lens upside down. That way you can easily flip over the Nikonos to see and adjust the settings rather than having to swing the whole camera around laterally.

 

[grain elevator]

Indeed!
The OP asked for 400 iso films OTHER THAN T-Maxes, Deltas and XP2s, which rules out Kodak and Ilford (except for Hp5+).
What remains?
Foma.

The OP wrote he was looking for fine grain and sharpness. I believe he was asking WHETHER he should consider any other films, not ruling out these three films. He already had the three best candidates. Why recommend other films that are worse on the criteria he specified?

 

[DeletedAcct1]

The OP wrote he was looking for fine grain and sharpness. I believe he was asking WHETHER he should consider any other films, not ruling out these three films. He already had the three best candidates. Why recommend other films that are worse on the criteria he specified?

Worse on the criteria is your personal opinion.
Let be the OP the judge.

 

[miha]

In 135 XP2 SUPER in C-41 or HP5 in Perceptol, both exposed at E.I. 200. HP5 in 120 developed in DD-X works great at E.I. 400.

 

[Agulliver]

Personally I would go for HP5+ in ID-11 but OP might prefer Delta 400 or T-MAX 400.

If fine grain is required I would not use Fomapan 400 - it's a characterful film but not what I would call fine grained in 135.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Personally I would go for HP5+ in ID-11 but OP might prefer Delta 400 or T-MAX 400.

If fine grain is required I would not use Fomapan 400 - it's a characterful film but not what I would call fine grained in 135.

It depends on what developer is processed. In Perceptol and Adox Atomal even Fomapan 400 is reasonably fine grained. If you don't want grain shoot a larger format or go digital.

 

[MattKing]

Worse on the criteria is your personal opinion.
Let be the OP the judge.

Yes, but the OP was asking for our suggestions.
I don't tend to suggest something that I personally don't think will meet the criteria.
If the OP had been merely asking for a list of alternatives, it would be different.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Aloha!

I've recently rediscovered my old love for film and have started playing with a personal project, doing underwater black and white portraits.

I think aesthetically I'd like fine grain and high sharpness. I'm going to grab some T-Max, Delta and XP2 Super, any other film suggestions to run a test roll and compare?

Thanks so much for your time!

Lyle

No other film to consider...
If you want real black and white, TMax400, and if you can depart from real black and white, XP2.
Beyond: if you want to wet print, TMax, if you want to scan, XP2.
Beyond: if you want to scan, a digital camera makes more sense.

 

[albireo]

Beyond: if you want to scan, a digital camera makes more sense.

Why?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Why?

Because the huge efforts and time used for reaching an outstanding wet print, make sense only when you will get that beautiful wet print...
For digital printing, other efforts make more sense, and make your digital activity a better one in the final print, and a more comfortable one.

 

[albireo]

Because the huge efforts and time used for reaching an outstanding wet print, make sense only when you will get that beautiful wet print.

I'm afraid that sounds very elitist and a tad narrow minded.

Plenty of people out there love film, enjoy using and owning film cameras, and love the beauty of a well exposed and developed negative, but for various reasons do not or cannot set up a darkroom to do wet printing. You see, many film users out there nowadays are not retired boomers with a huge basement. Think students, or professionals who move a lot and live in small rental flats. Think expensive flats in London, Paris, San Francisco. For these people, a scan makes perfect sense, in the interim. You'd be surprised at how many film users nowadays are in the 15-30 age range, buy plenty of film, and tend to scan - though they would love to print. They also buy *plenty* of film, thereby helping the whole industry stay afloat, by the way.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I'm afraid that sounds very elitist and a tad narrow minded.

Plenty of people out there love film, enjoy using and owning film cameras, and love the beauty of a well exposed and developed negative, but for various reasons do not or cannot set up a darkroom to do wet printing. You see, many film users out there nowadays are not retired boomers with a huge basement. Think students, or professionals who move a lot and live in small rental flats. Think expensive flats in London, Paris, San Francisco. For these people, a scan makes perfect sense, in the interim. You'd be surprised at how many film users nowadays are in the 15-30 age range, buy plenty of film, and tend to scan - though they would love to print. They also buy *plenty* of film, thereby helping the whole industry stay afloat, by the way.

Not elitist at all... Not narrow minded in any way... Pure and simple truth.
And I have no problem with people doing it...
And I'm not surprised at how many people do it: i've been into this for 34 years, and I've done photography, digital photography, and film scanning, that's why I know what does what.

 

[blockend]

People often recommend fast film in Rodinal. To my eyes high ISO film clumps horribly in Rodinal derivatives. Acutance dev's give great sharpness and tonality but even at 100 ISO grain is noticeable. Each to their own, of course.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Not elitist at all... Not narrow minded in any way... Pure and simple truth.
And I have no problem with people doing it...
And I'm not surprised at how many people do it: i've been into this for 34 years, and I've done photography, digital photography, and film scanning, that's why I know what does what.

Been doing photography (both wet/silver and digital) for about 32 years. IMHO, you can both create beutiful images both with a darkroom and computer. At the same time, can create horrible/mediocre works with both of them.

Finally, since I do this for fun and my own enjoyment, it could be equally fulfilling to work on the darkroom, among the chemical odors and red light as well as speeding time with a film scanner and computer adjusting, dodge burning and perfecting images on image software.

Not challenging your reasoning, just adding my two cents on your comment.

On the other hand, related to OP request, have you considered new Ultrafine Finesse?

https://www.ultrafineonline.com/ulfiblandwhf.html

Best regards and have a great evening.

 

[Donald Qualls]

People often recommend fast film in Rodinal. To my eyes high ISO film clumps horribly in Rodinal derivatives. Acutance dev's give great sharpness and tonality but even at 100 ISO grain is noticeable. Each to their own, of course.

Depends on the look you like.

.EDU Ultra 400 in Parodinal 1:50 -- film usually considered very grainy, and a developer that does nothing to smooth that out. Yes, there's grain, but it's not BAD grain.

And here's 1990s vintage Tri-X, roughly ten years expired when this was exposed, same developer as above. These are both full frame scans from 35mm (though at this size, I'm afraid you can't really see what the grain is doing).