Why does Slower B&W Film Have a Darker Look?

[philosomatographer]

Okay, philosomatograhpher, you (and others) have convinced me. The above shots are, indeed, better than what I have been seeing from my lab (at least with Pan F). If you do not mind, please provide a detailed list of what I will need (be as specific as possible). I will do Pan F, but also Delta 100 and 400. I gather I could buy all of what I will need from Freestyle? I have dealt with them, and they seem like a good outfit. Before I forget: I gather I will need a good film scanner, too?

With the best film scanner in the world, you will only ever enjoy half of what B&W film is about. You really should try to make some space for a small darkroom, making analogue prints is amazing, the final step of a great process. People practically give darkroom equipment (enlargers, trays, easels) away. Still, let's talk about film development.

There are probably hundreds of APUG posts and web articles on film development, and many books, but this is what I can think of:

Chemicals:

• Developer (I strongly recommend D-67, ID-11, or equivalent, easy to begin with, perfect grain/sharpness compromise). I buy in powder form an mix up a batch every 2 months or so, but also available in liquid.
• Stop Bath (stops the developing action)
• Fixer ("fixes" any undeveloped silver grains)
• Wetting agent (basically a form of pure soap, decreases the viscosity of the water during the final wash, causes even drying / prevents marks)

Hardware:

• Three or so 1-litre measuring jugs, the "laboratory" kind. Plastic or glass is good, plastic doesn't break easily!
• Developing tank: Many options, but I use a steel developing tank - a small 500ml Nikor tank, does two 35mm films at a time. A 1000ml tank can do up to four.
• If going with a steel tank, Metal spirals to load your film on. Condition of these are most important: if buying second-hand, make sure they are not even slightly bent! Otherwise you'll go crazy trying to load film onto them in the dark. Some people never get the feel for the process of loading metal reels, then you may want to get a twist-and-turn plastic spiral and tank, I have a Paterson "daylight" tank that works nicely.
• A good thermometer to regulate water temperature (you usually want to work as close as 20ºC as possible, otherwise you have to use non-standard developing times.
• Latex gloves, and maybe even protective glasses if you are accident-prone
• A hose on the tap makes it easier to fill things with water
• Some means for you to time, I use my wristwatch, but a stopwatch / timer might make life easier
• A totally dark place to load your film in. I am lucky to have access to my own darkroom, but otherwise, a light-sealed cupboard, or a film changing bag.
• When you start out, I would not recommend caring about saving and re-using chemicals, but when you do, get a couple of laboratory-grade chemical storage bottles (dark brown) to store and re-use things like made-up developer, fixer, etc. Either way, it'll be very economical, the chemicals are dirt cheap per-use.
• Some place free of dust to hang drying film (each roll is about 1m long), and some way to clip the film to it (e.g. clothes pegs)

At least one spare roll of film to practice loading (in complete darkness) whatever tank you get. You don't want to ruin images while you get the feel for doing this.

And lastly, patience and perseverance. It's worth it...
Good luck with sourcing your materials, and please do share your journey with us here! What camera(s) do you use?

 

[fschifano]

To develop your own film, you don't really need too much. Here's a list

• A tank with reels. I like the 2 reel plastic tanks. Easy to load. Almost no learning curve. Reels are adjustable and can be used for medium format film without spending for new reels
• A thermometer. No need to go crazy here. Get one of those kitchen thingies from WalMart for about $10. Close enough.
• Clothespins to hang the film to dry.
• Some 1L soda pop bottles to store your chemistry. These work great. Don't spend a lot of money for the so called photo chemical bottles. The plastic used to make these is actually inferior to the soda bottle plastic for this application. You can get glass bottles if you like. I don't see any advantage.
• Developer - 1 gallon mix of D-76
• Stop bath - anything you like. They're all the same. I don't care for the odorless variety. They don't age out, but they do get used up faster and cost more. The smell of acetic acid doesn't bother me, and once it's mixed to working strength, it's hardly noticeable.
• Fixer - Any rapid fixer concentrate will do. Again, shop for price here, 'cause they're all more or less the same. One is just as good as the other.
• If you don't have a space you can make completely dark (and I do mean completely - not even little light leaks) get a changing bag. Larger is better than smaller.
• Wetting agent - I like Photoflo. I've used Edwal's version and I've used Kodak's version. They both work equally well. Kodak's is less expensive for me.
• A funnel.
• A big old plastic slotted spoon for mixing the developer - another Walmart kitchen gadget.
• Some small plastic spoons for stirring small amounts of chemicals.
• A couple of Pyrex measuring cups. One at 1L size and one at 1/2 liter size.
• Two cheap plastic buckets for mixing the developer.

That's about it. The tank and changing bag will last forever. The thermometer will usually crap out in 6 months to a year, but for $10, who cares? By that time, it's likely you'll have damaged an expensive thermometer and will need a replacement anyway.

 

[Jim Noel]

I had the same problem with Pan F+. Super, super high contrast and I usually shoot HP5+ and D3200 which has just the opposite effect with me. I know it's something I am not doing right for the film and camera which also leads me to believe it's the exposure. I have seen others get incredible results with Pan F+.

Slower speed films by their nature are more contrasty than their high speed cousins. If they present more contrast than you need for your style of printing, test for proper development times, and developer dilution.

 

[2F/2F]

I had the same problem with Pan F+. Super, super high contrast and I usually shoot HP5+ and D3200 which has just the opposite effect with me. I know it's something I am not doing right for the film and camera which also leads me to believe it's the exposure. I have seen others get incredible results with Pan F+.

The basic rule of thumb is that faster films have lower contrast, and vice versa, so what you are seeing is in line with this.

Low contrast is very often a good thing. Low contrast is what gives a film exposure (and processing) latitude, and lots of malleability. Low contrast is what allows Delta 3200 to be as versatile as it is. Low contrast means that upon underexposure, low tones are not dropped as severely, so low-contrast films are the best for holding on to detail and texture in the low tones when you have to underexpose.

 

[FilmOnly]

I very much appreciate all of the input. I have a small bathroom in my basement, and I gather I will use that room for developing. Overall, only the dust-free place seems to be a problem. Dust is anywhere and everywhere.

2F/2F: I have notced precisely what you are describing above. For me, low contrast has always been a blessing (usually in disguise). Recently, I have been favoring Portra 400NC over Ektar 100. While Ektar is no doubt a superb film, Portra 400NC has a very even tempter and pleasing look.

 

[ulysses]

but I doubt I (or anyone) would get it right on the first roll, and I also doubt that it will be easy or quick.

You might be surprised. I developed my first roll at 10, and it came out just fine (verichrome pan in a "tri-chem pack" which I believe used D-72 for the developer. Getting printing down took a little longer. Almost 50 years later, I'm still learning.

Before you give up on B&W, you might want to try one of the chromagenic B&W films that get processed in C-41 along with the color film. It has the advantage that C-41 is C-41 and everyone does it pretty much the same. And most every lab does it well.

Good luck!
Ulysses

 

[Robert Budding]

I always run a film test whenever I try a new film/developer combination. So, no, slower films do not have a darker look unless you are underexposing. Don't want to run film tests? Then check the shadow detail on your negs. If it's lacking, you've underexposed. Then it's simply a matter of finding the right development time to give the contrast you desire.

Jump in and develop yourself. It's very easy to control your results.

 

[Worker 11811]

1. Slight exposure variations will likely have extreme effects on the look of the picture. This is true of all high-contrast media, but especially when shot in contrasty light (i.e. a sunny day, when a disproportionate number of pictures seem to be taken). As such, excellent metering technique is extremely important with these films.

I just got some Pan F+ this past week and I just went out and shot 4 rolls of it last Sunday. I processed three out of the four rolls already and I'm going to process the last one the next chance I get. I'm still re-learning a lot about shooting film and I'm still learning new stuff all the time. By no means am I an expert but, as a progress report of sorts, this is what I have discovered with Pan F+.

It can be very contrasty, even when correctly exposed but when it is not exposed correctly it can either go flat or it can block-up on you. It will do so very quickly. I figure you've got ±1 stop or maybe 2 to work with before you go out of its latitude. Go too dark and you'll see this thin, gray patina over the image. It seems like you're looking through a sheer curtain. Go too bright and the image will go the other way... all black or all white with no in-between.

I don't know how to explain what I'm thinking so I'll just say it: This film wants to see a lot of light.

I don't mean, simply, that it is ISO-50 film so it needs more light to expose.
No, it wants "BIG LIGHT." It seems to want to see light coming from all over.

I'm not sure I'm explaining it right. :confused:

It likes to be shot on a bright, sunny day but it doesn't like to be shot at high noon. 4:00 in the afternoon seems to be about right. If you try to shoot it at high noon, it will block up. If you try to stop down too much it will go flat. If you try to go into the shade to get out of the noon sun, you might only have one stop of latitude to work in.

The best time to shoot this film in my estimation is on a bright, overcast day in the afternoon. It wants light coming from all directions.

If you give it a strong source of light from one direction it will block up where it is bright and will flatten out where there is less light.

It's hard for me to explain. Am I explaining it right?

Even so, I LIKE shooting this stuff! I really like the look of it. If I can learn to tame this beast, I think I'll really be able to make great photos!

My previous roll I developed in D-76 1:1 for 15 minutes. For the next one I think I'm going to shorten that time down to 13 or 13.5 minutes. It's already been shot. I'm just waiting for the time to develop it. What do you all think about that?

 

[2F/2F]

Hi, Randy.

What you are noticing is the difference in quality of light at different times of the day.

Different qualities ("qualities" meaning "characteristics" in this use) lead to different sculpting of subjects, and different amounts of contrast.

I think that you are basically saying with your "Pan F wants big light" statement is that the film looks less contrasty in less contrasty light.

The general understanding of it is simple: Films come in different contrasts. Light comes in different contrasts. The contrast of the light reacting with the contrast of the film gives you the contrast of the negative. Negatives end up with different contrasts, as a result.

For instance, when an average-contrast film is shot:

...in very contrasty light, it leads to a very contrasty negative.
...in slightly contrasty light, it leads to a slightly contrasty negative.
...in average contrast light, it leads to an average contrast negative.
...in slightly flat light, it leads to a slightly flat negative.
...in very flat light, it leads to a very flat negative.

With a high-contrast film like Pan F, the results on the negative for each type of light are "shifted a row" (to use a highly technical term ) toward more contrast when compared with the average-contrast film. So, if a high contrast film is shot:

...in very contrasty light, it leads to a super contrasty negative.
...in slightly contrasty light, it leads to a very contrasty negative.
...in average contrast light, it leads to a contrasty negative.
...in slightly flat light, it leads to an average contrast negative.
...in very flat light, it leads to a slightly flat negative.

Same applies to a low-contrast (flat) film. In a given lighting situation, compared to an average-contrast film, everything "shifts down a row" toward less contrast. So, if a low-contrast film is shot:

...in very contrasty light, it leads to a slightly contrasty negative.
...in slightly contrasty light, it leads to an average contrast negative.
...in average contrast light, it leads to a slightly flat negative.
...in slightly flat light, leads to a very flat negative.
...in very flat light, leads to a super flat negative.

So, your exposure is not incorrect just because you get empty low tones and blown out high tones when shooting a contrasty film in any type of light that is of average contrast or greater. It simply means that the contrast (range) of your film cannot capture the contrast (range) of brightness in the composition. It is not an exposure issue. It is a contrast issue.

Film does not want anything. It simply is what it is. It is up to each of us to learn just this: what it is. Then we also learn what it can be if we treat it in non-standard ways. Then, we go out into "the field" and we know what we are working with, and what we can do with it, given a particular lighting situation. We are the ones who have to want something, and then know how to get it.

What altering exposure and development does is to effectively give you an entirely different film, by changing its contrast. Overexpose and underdevelop that contrasty film, and it loses contrast from its inherent characteristics. A contrasty film becomes an average-contrast film. See the silly theoretical examples I wrote in the silly chart above, and see what that does to the contrast on your developed negatives. You can now render an average-contrast negative from average-contrast light using an inherently contrasty film, by way of manipulating that inherently contrasty film so that it is no longer contrasty.

So, if you are suffering from empty shadows in a certain type of light, it does not mean that your film is the wrong speed or your exposure is wrong. It just means that the film is of the wrong contrast to capture what you want to capture in that type of light when exposed and processed to reflect its inherent state. You'd need to use a film that, either treated normally or altered, has a contrast that is a good match for the contrast of the light in which you are shooting.

It really is not as simple as: always add exposure to Pan F and always underdevelop Pan F so that it always acts like an average-contrast film. It is as simple/complex as knowing light, knowing you materials - both normally treated and manipulated - and being able to combine the two to get the desired result. The simple part is this idea and the understanding of it. The complex part is the extensive practice it takes to learn these things in a detailed enough way to be able to put them to use.

 

[Worker 11811]

I think I see what you're saying. It is the quality of the light. By "big light" I meant lots of light coming from all over and not too much from one place. Bright but not too much contrast.

If I was going to put it in terms of what I know better, I'd say this film has a narrow Q-factor when it comes to contrast.

Instead of saying that the film "wants" it would be better to say that "the film's response is thus" but I often personify things like that. If it was a person, it would want to see big light.

I really like working with this film. It's a challenge! I think that if I could get my brain around this film, going back to a more moderate contrast film will be a piece of cake. I already shot 4 rolls out of the 100 feet I bought and I think I might have to buy another spool of it. However, I'm also the kind of person who could shoot an entire roll of film on just one subject and come out with 36 good shots but still not be 100% satisfied with any of them.

Right now, I've got nine rolls of film (4 Pan F+ and 5 Legacy 100) all developed and waiting for me to get the time to go down to the basement and make some prints from them!

 

[xwhatsit]

I very much appreciate all of the input. I have a small bathroom in my basement, and I gather I will use that room for developing. Overall, only the dust-free place seems to be a problem. Dust is anywhere and everywhere.

I was in a similar situation to you a few months ago. Would never look back now! Easy, fast and cheap to DIY. I just do it in the bathroom too; dust clinging to the drying negatives was a problem until I read a post to turn the shower on super-hot to fill it with steam, then turn it off and hang the negs to dry in the shower. The steam keeps the dust down. Close the door and don't go back inside until the negs are dry. I develop before I go to bed, have dry negs in the morning.

I tie a piece of string between the shower head and the edge of the shower cubicle, and hang the film by hooking a bent paperclip through one of the sprocket holes and over the top of the string.

My first roll looked fantastic. I didn't even have a changing bag at that point, it was still being shipped from eBay, so I spooled the film onto the Paterson plastic reel in the closet at night with all the lights turned off. No light leaks.

Do it! Investment is almost nothing and it's a load of fun.

 

[FilmOnly]

Randy S: The following words could not be more accurate:

I don't know how to explain what I'm thinking so I'll just say it: This film wants to see a lot of light.

I don't mean, simply, that it is ISO-50 film so it needs more light to expose.
No, it wants "BIG LIGHT." It seems to want to see light coming from all over.

I'm not sure I'm explaining it right.

It likes to be shot on a bright, sunny day but it doesn't like to be shot at high noon. 4:00 in the afternoon seems to be about right. If you try to shoot it at high noon, it will block up. If you try to stop down too much it will go flat. If you try to go into the shade to get out of the noon sun, you might only have one stop of latitude to work in.

The best time to shoot this film in my estimation is on a bright, overcast day in the afternoon. It wants light coming from all directions.

If you give it a strong source of light from one direction it will block up where it is bright and will flatten out where there is less light.

It's hard for me to explain. Am I explaining it right?

I hear you loud and clear. This is exactly what I have experienced, and exactly what I have been trying to convey. With most of my subject matter, Pan F 50 becomes a very difficult film.

 

[FilmOnly]

With regard to the other comments here, I am seriously considering developing at home. Actually, the obstacle now is printing. If I could figure out how to approach printing (film scanning vs. having to find optical equipment), I would probably begin developing fairly soon.

 

[kauffman v36]

without reading everythings thats been posted since my last comment im gonna go off on a limb and say that its not that its a dark film, its that maybe we (by we i mean the others and I who think its a dark film) have discovered its slower than rated speed.

i just shot a roll at ISO 32 and it seems to be doing a bit better, not clipping highlights either.

 

[Worker 11811]

...With most of my subject matter, Pan F 50 becomes a very difficult film.

To me that is the challenge!

When I run into something like this I am the kind of person who MUST figure it out or else all will not be right with the world.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

without reading everythings thats been posted since my last comment im gonna go off on a limb and say that its not that its a dark film, its that maybe we (by we i mean the others and I who think its a dark film) have discovered its slower than rated speed.

i just shot a roll at ISO 32 and it seems to be doing a bit better, not clipping highlights either.

You control highlights in development. You can probably expose the film at an exposure index of 12 if you wanted to, as long as you make sure you stop development in time the highlights will remain intact.
'Clipping highlights' is a function of how you process your film, and has very little to do with the film itself.

You are correct that exposing the film at an exposure index other than the rated box speed will change how the film looks, and this is how we find out how to use a certain film to our liking.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If you give it a strong source of light from one direction it will block up where it is bright and will flatten out where there is less light.

That is called a wide brightness range, which is other words for having high general contrast.

The more contrast you have in the scene you photograph, the more tonal values you have to capture in your negative, and you have to adjust how you expose and process the negative to make it printable.
Deep shadows with very dark tones form in shadows of directional light. How do you capture shadow detail? By exposure!
So, the deeper the shadow you want to capture, the more you have to expose. Subsequently, the extra exposure given must be compensated for in processing by either giving less agitation, less developing time, or a combination thereof.

This is true with any film, but extra pronounced with a film like Pan-F+ due to its nature of having more built-in contrast than most. This is what makes Pan-F+ more difficult to use; it is simply a bit more temperamental in its behavior. But with enough practice, it can definitely be controlled, and you can have negatives of normal contrast.

The beauty of Pan-F+ is the ability to make a print of extremely high quality, even from small negatives. And you can use the inherent contrast to your advantage if you like that quality in a film.