What real B&W film to start with?

film_guy · Jan 29, 2007

I'm looking for a B&W film which has a really wide lattitude, contrast and sharpness, and also usable in low-light if possible so I'm thinking at least a speed of 400. I don't mind grain, in fact, the reason why I want to try real B&W film is for their grain since the BW400CN I had doesn't have any. Is there any ISO 800 B&W film or do I have to buy a 1600 speed film and ask the lab to do some pull processing?

The choices I'm looking at are below, so please give me your opinion(s) on them and which one would fit the above criteria:

Kodak
- Tmax 400
- Tmax 3200
- Tri-X 400

Ilford
- HP5 400
- Delta 400
- Delta 3200

reub2000 · Jan 29, 2007

If it's a grainy look that your after, then try either the HP5 or Tri-X. The Delta T-Max files are newer films designed with better grain characteristics.

I suggest that you look through the different films on pbase.

Ray Heath · Jan 29, 2007

g'day film, you should try the Delta 3200 (is it still available?) wonderful grain, sharpness despite the grain, great in low light, perfect negs with any 'normal' Ilford developer, more often hand-holdable in low light than 400ISO

fhovie · Jan 29, 2007

I'd use TRI-X - It has a lot of lattitude and can really be pushed. The grain is very tight and can be exagerated or minimized depending on how you handle it.

fschifano · Jan 29, 2007

I agree. Tri-X is my favorite 400 speed B&W film. HP5+ isn't bad either. Pick one. Both are good. As the days get longer and brigher, you might want to start using a slower film like Plus-X or FP4+ for daytime shooting.

JBrunner · Jan 29, 2007

Part of the character you are looking for, will be found in the film you choose, but the rest will be found in the exposing and developing, as in how you expose, how you develop, and what you develop with, so it is really a four part equation.

It sounds like you might enjoy mucking around with some Rodinal. I would highly recommend that you consider taking total control, and do your own developing. You don't need a darkroom, its quite easy, and very cheap. If you do the math on how many rolls a 17oz bottle of rodinal (or any other DIY developer) will process, you may be quite suprised at how cheap. HP5 or TriX would be my choice for a 400 speed roll film, or for ultimate coolness in grain, push a fifties emulsion, like Efke 100 two stops.

film_guy · Jan 29, 2007

Thanks for all the tips! Currently I can't do my own processing, but it's something which I'm going to start when I get a new place. I don't have any darkroom experience, so I'll have to start learning. The reason why I've been using labs all this time is because I don't have a scanner, and I can easily get scans or 5x7 prints of my color negatives.

Tri-X was my original choice after watching Nachtwey's War Photographer, but I got confused at the photo shop today after seeing all the choices they had for B&W film. I think I'm going to stick with Tri-X.

Thanks!

reub2000 · Jan 30, 2007

All you really need to develop film is a dark room, a film reel, developing tank, developer, fixer, and a sink to wash the film in. Virtually any lab will make prints from the negatives.

wirehead · Jan 30, 2007

I do developing in my apartment bathroom with maybe $100 worth of chemicals and gear.

Tri-X is good stuff. I love it.

arigram · Jan 30, 2007

Delta and T-Max are harder to exposure than "traditional" grain film so you should give Hp5+ or Tri-X a try first.

Bob F. · Jan 30, 2007

I would really suggest looking at developing your own B&W film. All you need is to load a daylight developing tank inside a changing bag and the rest is done in normal room lighting. It's a little less fiddly if you can black out a bathroom or walk-in closet etc, but a changing bag (the larger, the better) will do fine for 35mm and 120.

Labs rarely allow you to choose the developer and push/pull may not be available at all. Developing B&W takes some attention to detail (time and temperature) but little skill: after all, I do it all the time!

Have fun, Bob.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 30, 2007

Bob is right. Get a changing bag, a tank, and the rest can be done in the kitchen sink if you want to, or the bathroom, if you're good about sanitizing the area afterwards.
It is so easy to do. The investment to develop hundreds of rolls of film is nothing compared to what the lab charges. It will take some of your time, but you get to experience the MAGIC of seeing your work come to fruition. After you learn the basics, you'll see that you have 100% control of the work flow and the results.

Go for it!

As far as your film choice goes. Tri-X is fine, as is the other films. Stick to it, you'll get excellent, albeit different, results with either film.

Have fun!

- Thom

Gary Holliday · Jan 30, 2007

Another vote for Tri-X and Rodinal developer, but I've been a fan of the tonal qualities of Fuji Neopan 400...lovely film!

chrisofwlp · Jan 30, 2007

Im suprised that no one has spoken of developers yet.

many of the traits you are speaking of; tonality, contrast, and grain, are not strictey the properties of film, but of the film developer combination. one of my favorite 35mm combos is ilford pan F in rodinal. The more combinations you try, the more likely you will find one you like.

Christopher Breitenstein

Flotsam · Jan 30, 2007

I love Tri-X. Properly developed, you can pull beautiful 11x14s and 8x10s ans it has the the speed for sharp hand held shots even if you are using colored filters.

fhovie · Jan 30, 2007

I would not send my B&W film to a lab- I had a buddy that owned a lab- he used to do B&W film for customers - He used the same developer he used for prints - with a little different dilution - He never checked the temp - anything in the 70s was ok - He did all 100 asa films at one time and all 400 asa films for a different time. All the negs he made were really cooked. It is the whole attitude labs have about B&W - It doesn't fit into their schedule - it is quick and dirty. Forget it - get a tank - a closet and mix your own. All the chemicals you need can be found on the internet and pyrocat-p (now my favorite - is SOOOOOOO cheap to make and use. - If you are shooting cute little film - use Mytol or one of its equivalents. If you make a great negative - anyone can print it.

darkroom · Jan 30, 2007

for grainy effect i use kodak 3200

Black Dog · Jan 30, 2007

Love XP2-beautiful prewar tonality but the grain of a medium speed film and it's C41 process so no agonising over what to soup it in. Its only weakness is lower contrast situations, which is the price you pay for that long tonal range.

htmlguru4242 · Jan 31, 2007

Tri-X is a great film, and I highly recommend starting out with it.

It can be exposed anywhere from 400 (maybe even slower), all the way up to 3200 and still yield results that are usable.

As far as developing goes, its probably best to do it yourself. While there ARE labs out there that will process your film well, its hard to find one and it comes at quite a price. With less than $100 of chemicals and equipment, doing it yourself is definitely the best way. I (as always) recommend D-76 as a developer, but there sure seem to be alot of bids for Rodinal here.

I should pick some of that up and see what it can do.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 31, 2007

May I ask a couple of counter questions?

1. Is the choice of developer really that critical? It is my experience that it matters more HOW you use your developer than WHICH developer you use.

2. Isn't there a possibility to get lost in film and developer testing, when you should be bothered with things like exposing film, practicing 'seeing', finding objects to photograph, etc? I got stuck in the jungle of a million films and developers, and I grew not one iota in the two years I did it. My reply is, get over it, pick something you have had luck with and work with it.

- Thom

chrisofwlp said:
Im suprised that no one has spoken of developers yet.

many of the traits you are speaking of; tonality, contrast, and grain, are not strictey the properties of film, but of the film developer combination. one of my favorite 35mm combos is ilford pan F in rodinal. The more combinations you try, the more likely you will find one you like.

Christopher Breitenstein

film_guy · Jan 31, 2007

I've been talking to a friend who does some film photography, and he said HP5 is more pushable than Tri-X when needed (especially up to iso1600). Is this true?

Don't get me wrong, I'm very interested in developing my own B&W film, but currently just don't have the time nor a film scanner to scan the processed negs, thus my reliance on 1 hour photo labs. I also need the 4x6 and 5x7 prints from them because I don't think I can afford to get my own printing equipment.

poutnik · Jan 31, 2007

I have really great experience with HP5+ @ EI1600 - nice unobtrusive grain in Rodinal 1:50 - nice tonality, well preserved highlights and good shadow detail. (To tell the truth, I love this combination. I use it for portraits.)

I can not speak of TriX, have not tried.

Jiri

reub2000 · Jan 31, 2007

I doubt a 1 hour lab would push your film. I also doubt that there many of the 1 hour labs will process black and white film.

If printing is that much of a worry, you can always have home souped negatives printed at a 1 hour lab. By selecting the negatives that you want on a light table, you can save a bit of money.

Besides bringing black and white film to my camera store, it costs around $15 for development of a roll of black and white film and a contact sheet. At that kind of rate, it doesn't take very long for a developing tank to pay for itself.

eddym · Jan 31, 2007

film_guy said:
I've been talking to a friend who does some film photography, and he said HP5 is more pushable than Tri-X when needed (especially up to iso1600). Is this true?

Don't get me wrong, I'm very interested in developing my own B&W film, but currently just don't have the time nor a film scanner to scan the processed negs, thus my reliance on 1 hour photo labs. I also need the 4x6 and 5x7 prints from them because I don't think I can afford to get my own printing equipment.

I have pushed TriX to 1600 many times, and it looks great. I have also pushed HP5 to 3200, and it looks great, but very contrasty, which is to be expected. It's really an emergency procedure; if you need that much speed, you should be shooting Delta 3200.

If you need B&W film processed and scanned, then I would highly recommend Ilford XP2. It can be processed by any minilab, and is easier to scan than traditional B&W films. And it is excellent film.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 31, 2007

Ilford XP2

The Ilford XP2 is a really good suggestion. It's extremely flexible (I shoot it anywhere from EI 50 to 800 with normal development) and it prints beautifully. The main benefit is that the labs process it in C-41 chemistry and you actually run a much stronger chance of getting well processed negs, as opposed to chancing with the quality of their traditional b&w film processing.

These days with, dare I say, digit-al minilab, color correction on the color paper they use to print on will usually result in what appears as a neutral gray scale, and not the extreme yellow/brown tone you used to get due to poor control of color correction (more the operator than the machines, but all the same).

- Thom

eddym said:
I have pushed TriX to 1600 many times, and it looks great. I have also pushed HP5 to 3200, and it looks great, but very contrasty, which is to be expected. It's really an emergency procedure; if you need that much speed, you should be shooting Delta 3200.

If you need B&W film processed and scanned, then I would highly recommend Ilford XP2. It can be processed by any minilab, and is easier to scan than traditional B&W films. And it is excellent film.

What real B&W film to start with?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency