Need High Contrast and Low Contrast B&W Film Suggestions (ISO 100/400)

[dcsang]

Guys (girls?)

I'm looking for suggestions on high contrast AND low contrast B&W films.

ISO 100/400 is preferred and hopefully I can adjust the 400 accordingly (i.e. push to 1600).

Thanks,
Dave

 

[iml]

If you want to push, Tri-X is the thing, I shoot it from ISO 200 to ISO 3200. Contrast and grain varies accordingly.

ISO 100 - Fuji Acros is beautiful, tonally rich, creamy, my new favourite slow film.

Ian

 

[dcsang]

Thanks..
maybe I should clarify a bit though - I am looking for a high contrast film (100 or 400 or both) as well as a low contrast film (100 or 400 or both).

I'd like to use the low contrast film in high contrast situations and the high contrast film in low contrast situations.

Thanks again,
Dave

 

[varjag]

I like Tri-X at 640 in Microphen for overcast season, and Tri-X at 200 in Rodinal for sunny summer days. These two combos give me about the same degree of contrast/shadow detail on the neg, despite vastly different lighting conditions.

I would also second Ian's recommendation of Acros. Works great for me in Rodinal rated at EI 50 to 80.

 

[dcsang]

Would you guys consider Acros HIGH or LOW contrast though?

So far I see "Acros" but no reference to whether people consider it high contrast or low contrast.

Dave

 

[Fabian]

Hello


I am far away from being an expert, but the contrast has not only to do with the film but mainly with development.

Do you develop your own film?

Just get one 100 and one 400 film and handle the contrast using exposure and development.


Fabian

 

[rich815]

Not sure exactly what you're after here. Perhaps you can expand on what you're after and why so take this for what it's worth:

While some films are known for having more characteristics towards either way I have found (and others have discussed here and elsewhere) how almost any film can be exposed and developed for high contrast or low contrast. Your control for this has more to do with your exposure and development technique than the film itself. Especially if you're looking for extremes either way of the contrast characteristic. And if you're scanning in the end the post-process workflow also plays a very important role.

In the end all the different films will have a different look nonetheless (i.e. shoot two different ones for high contrast, you'll get high contrast but the look will vary in terms of the final tonality, grain look, severity and "toe and shoulder" of the contrast, etc.) and what you personally want from that final look is what will be most important in the end. People here will make suggestions but I think you've got some experimenting to do to find best what you're after in terms of that final look.

Lots of chat and talk all over the internet on how to expose and develop for either extreme low or high contrast.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

Guys (girls?)

I'm looking for suggestions on high contrast AND low contrast B&W films.

ISO 100/400 is preferred and hopefully I can adjust the 400 accordingly (i.e. push to 1600).

Thanks,
Dave

That's what I use.

Across from which I get what I consider to be relatively high contrast negatives at iso 80, Tri-X from which I get high contrasted negative at iso 320 and which I sometimes push to iso 800 if I need to, FP4 (only in 6x6 and 4x5" because I cannot find the other emulsions in these formats) from which I get middle to low contrast negative at iso 100 (but I once tried to push that emulsion up to 3200 iso just because someone told me it was possible and I indeed got a printable negative albeit not a perfect one), Fuji SS100 from which I get middle to low contrast negative at iso 160 (I started using this mostly because it is about half the price of the Across and I quite like this, however most of the people I know do not like this and find the emulsion contrast too low, I suspect it has to do with developement rather than emulsion). I have sometimes used HP5 and Pan400 from IlFord and they are low contrast 400 iso films but I could never get anything I really liked from them (I did not try long enough probably). I process the film almost always in HC-110 dilution H and I tend to use longer times with less agitation that it is usually recommended.

Anyway, after this long list my only suggestion is this: use whatever film long enough to learn how to get what you like from it. I am sure that no recent emulsion (possibly not even old ones but I was not there to try...) is really bad, just you have to process the same stuff enough times (and uder strict control of what you are doing) to get the negatives you like.

GLF

PS
I usually try to get middle contrast with details both in the shadow and the highlights. I believe (but I would like to hear what other people think) that once you can get such a negative then you can get whatever type of contrast you like when you print.

 

[Ronald M]

Overall contrast from the deepest shadow point to brightest highlight is controlled by time in developer.

Some films have different shaped curves to the midtone region. Tri x having lowish contrast in the middle, but the same highlight/shadow points as any other film. A film like T Max is high contrast in the middle, but the same end point density as tri x albeit at different exposures.

If you want low contrast, expose a bit more and develope less. One stop more exposure with development reduced 20% for a start.

Flattened contrast in midtones is with tri x, HP5+, Plus X to a lesser degree, FP4+ to a lesser degree.

Straight line contrast in mid tones is T Max and Delta 100. You can reduce their overall contrast with overexposure/under development.

To gain more contrast with any film, simply develope longer.

There is no such thing as high or low contrast film.

 

[dcsang]

I guess what I'm trying to ask is:
Sunny days.. like BRIGHT BLINDINGLY SUNNY DAYS 😀 - I want to use a film that isn't going to be completely harsh black and white - that is, i don't want to blow out highlights and lose shadow detail - now while I'm aware that development controls overall contrast, are there not any films that one could use on such days that would "reduce" contrast in a scene outside of development.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[rogue_designer]

tri-x - all the time.

adjust speed and contrast with processing.

 

[sweathog]

Ilford Delta 400 is a favourite of mine for contrast. It is essentially a punchier, contrastier version of HP5/Pan 400.

 

[rich815]

I guess what I'm trying to ask is:
Sunny days.. like BRIGHT BLINDINGLY SUNNY DAYS 😀 - I want to use a film that isn't going to be completely harsh black and white - that is, i don't want to blow out highlights and lose shadow detail - now while I'm aware that development controls overall contrast, are there not any films that one could use on such days that would "reduce" contrast in a scene outside of development.

Thanks,
Dave

As mentioned:

"...If you want low contrast, expose a bit more and develope less. One stop more exposure with development reduced 20% for a start...."

Works like a charm for me from Tri-X and HP5+ to Pan F, FP4+, Delta 100, and others.

Here's a set as an example. It's using ERA100, Neopan 100SS and FP4+ but let me tell you it was HARSHLY BRIGHT AND SUNNY. It was a beach in June at almost mid-day! Highlights and shadows preserved very nicely in my opinion for such contrasty conditions:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/sets/72157594171439870/

 

[giellaleafapmu]

I guess what I'm trying to ask is:
Sunny days.. like BRIGHT BLINDINGLY SUNNY DAYS 😀 - I want to use a film that isn't going to be completely harsh black and white - that is, i don't want to blow out highlights and lose shadow detail - now while I'm aware that development controls overall contrast, are there not any films that one could use on such days that would "reduce" contrast in a scene outside of development.

Thanks,
Dave

It is film+exposition+processing+printing which gives you the result. I am afraid that film is the less important factor (despite what film makers let you believe), exposition and processing the crucial ones (they cannot be repeated), printing is important but you can do it over and over again until you like the result (and if you are patient you can use internegative, multicontrast, dodging, burning...whatever to correct things). Ansel Adams' "The Negative" is a an old classic book but it can make a good reading to understand how the whole thing works. Also getting to see any book of old picture shows that even an orthocromatic film and an uncoated lens can make a nice contrasted image if you know how to treat the material.

GLF

 

[dcsang]

*sigh*

I should have just thought about this whole thing a bit more.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[rich815]

*sigh*

I should have just thought about this whole thing a bit more.

Thanks,
Dave

Why the sigh Dave? You sound disappointed? 😕

Shoot any film, rate it 1/2 stop to a stop over (400 at 200, 100 at 50), develop at 20% or so less time.

Were you looking for some other answer, like "just use film XXXX"?

 

[varjag]

What folks say. Pulling really works. In his gallery, Todd Hanz has some very impressive examples of what can one do with same film by varying processing.