harmsr
M5 Nut
Ok, first I have never shot in B&W. It has always been color and then a PS conversion after scanning. I typically shoot Kodak Pro 100UC, Portra 160NC, Portra 400VC, Portra 800. I really like the skin tones and fine grain of the Portra line.
I am wanting to try some B&W film vs. a digital conversion to see if I like it better, but am really unfamiliar with the films.
Lenses used will be 50 DR Cron and 50 Lux ASPH. Subjects will be candid portrait and downtown street sceens in the early evening light here in Phoenix.
I would like to try a 400 speed film.
I do not do my own developing and don't want to start doing that yet either. I do have a good local lab that can process C-41 B&W or normal B&W.
Now the question.
HP5 Plus, Delta 400, XP2 Super, or ????
Please help with suggestions/comparisons, but explain why vs. just a film name.
Thanks for the help,
Ray
I am wanting to try some B&W film vs. a digital conversion to see if I like it better, but am really unfamiliar with the films.
Lenses used will be 50 DR Cron and 50 Lux ASPH. Subjects will be candid portrait and downtown street sceens in the early evening light here in Phoenix.
I would like to try a 400 speed film.
I do not do my own developing and don't want to start doing that yet either. I do have a good local lab that can process C-41 B&W or normal B&W.
Now the question.
HP5 Plus, Delta 400, XP2 Super, or ????
Please help with suggestions/comparisons, but explain why vs. just a film name.
Thanks for the help,
Ray
Andy K
Well-known
As you will not be doing your own developing you might find XP2 more convenient as it is not a true bw film, it is a C41 process film which means it can be processed at the same place you get colour negative film processed.
However, if you intend making comparisons between desaturated colour and true black and white then go for the HP5+. HP5+ can be push processed up to ISO 3200. Delta 400 has slightly finer grain.
However, if you intend making comparisons between desaturated colour and true black and white then go for the HP5+. HP5+ can be push processed up to ISO 3200. Delta 400 has slightly finer grain.
Last edited:
peter_n
Veteran
HP5+, Tri-X for a slightly grainier look, Neopan 400 for somewhat finer grain, XP2 for the convenience and latitude. All great films.
Andrew3511
Established
Delta is a fair bit finer grained than HP5 but needs more care with exposure. If you are shooting in good light why do you want an ASA 400 film specifically? FP4+ has been my favourite Ilford film for some years and still is, very tolerant of over-exposure, fairly fine-grained, very good gradation. I have used quite a bit of XP2 and it's a very good film with fantastic exposure latitude and a grain structure that is more like a colour print film, which in essence it is. Easy to get it processed.
It's really not hard to process your own films, all you need is a changing bag to load the tank in, a developing tank, a measuring cylinder and a thermometer. The chemicals are cheap and you have control over it.
It's really not hard to process your own films, all you need is a changing bag to load the tank in, a developing tank, a measuring cylinder and a thermometer. The chemicals are cheap and you have control over it.
R
RichardS
Guest
I'd try Ilford XP 2. It is a C-41 process film but it gives you black and white negatives without the color tint that other C-41 black and white films can give you.
Dick
Dick
Toby
On the alert
If you want to use black and white, start with standard 400 iso b&w film - Tri-X or HP5, these are the ones pro labs are familiar with and every photo course recommends. They are the starting point
martin-f5
Well-known
if you don't develop at your self, forget TriX and others.
Buy a Kodak BW 400 CN, the drugstore can not do anything wrong, the developing is a kind of standard and milliontimes proved.
If you want to use triX or others go and find professional developing studio or do by yourself, it's not so difficult as you may think.
Buy a Kodak BW 400 CN, the drugstore can not do anything wrong, the developing is a kind of standard and milliontimes proved.
If you want to use triX or others go and find professional developing studio or do by yourself, it's not so difficult as you may think.
harmsr
M5 Nut
The film will be developed at a local "PRO-lab" of very good quality that does my color now and can do true B&W. So that is not really an issue.
I assume the "true" B&W films are better for B&W tonal range vs. the C41 processed ones?
TMax, HP5, Delta, Neopan- in 400 speed - Which of these has finer grain, excellent sharpness, best highlight/shadow details - tonal range, is more tolerant of exposure lattitude, and scans well?
Sorry for the novice questions, but I have always shot color.
Thanks,
Ray
I assume the "true" B&W films are better for B&W tonal range vs. the C41 processed ones?
TMax, HP5, Delta, Neopan- in 400 speed - Which of these has finer grain, excellent sharpness, best highlight/shadow details - tonal range, is more tolerant of exposure lattitude, and scans well?
Sorry for the novice questions, but I have always shot color.
Thanks,
Ray
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Phew. You might be asking for a bit too much with all those criteria. But...
Finest grain will go to the newer emulsions, so TMY, Delta, and Neopan. TMY actually isn't that fine a grain, so maybe that's not a good option. Delta and Neopan would be better.
Sharpness also tends to go towards the newer emlusions, but bear in mind that there is a difference between actual sharpness and apparent sharpness. Because the grain in the new emulsions is so fine, people often think it's less sharp than it is. People associate sharp grain with overall sharpness. BUt there is more than enough resolving power in these films.
Beyond that, sharpness is also a result of the developer choice. You can take a very sharp film and make it soft and mushy if you use a solvent developer.
Shadow and highlight detail is entirely a result of exposure and development. Since you aren't developing yourself this might be harder to control, therefore. Which leads back to exposure latitude.
Your best bet might be to stick with a traditional emulsion, which with the candidates you mention is HP5. More tolerant of exposure and development, meaning that you can probably expose as needed for shadow detail yet still retain highlight detail in development. Sharpness is fine in the right developer, though grain will be higher.
As for scanning well...I would recommend, again, the newer emulsions for that, but then you lose exposure latitude and, in some ways, you give up on tonal range/curve as well.
allan
Finest grain will go to the newer emulsions, so TMY, Delta, and Neopan. TMY actually isn't that fine a grain, so maybe that's not a good option. Delta and Neopan would be better.
Sharpness also tends to go towards the newer emlusions, but bear in mind that there is a difference between actual sharpness and apparent sharpness. Because the grain in the new emulsions is so fine, people often think it's less sharp than it is. People associate sharp grain with overall sharpness. BUt there is more than enough resolving power in these films.
Beyond that, sharpness is also a result of the developer choice. You can take a very sharp film and make it soft and mushy if you use a solvent developer.
Shadow and highlight detail is entirely a result of exposure and development. Since you aren't developing yourself this might be harder to control, therefore. Which leads back to exposure latitude.
Your best bet might be to stick with a traditional emulsion, which with the candidates you mention is HP5. More tolerant of exposure and development, meaning that you can probably expose as needed for shadow detail yet still retain highlight detail in development. Sharpness is fine in the right developer, though grain will be higher.
As for scanning well...I would recommend, again, the newer emulsions for that, but then you lose exposure latitude and, in some ways, you give up on tonal range/curve as well.
allan
iñaki
Well-known
I´m a newbie, and have been using some w&b films in the last year: Ilford fp4 (ISO 100), Ilford HP5 (ISO 400), fuji presto (ISO 400) and Kodak TMY(ISO 400). They are different, and I like all of them but still don´t know wich one I prefer, maybe the Ilford, but the Fuji has finer grain. All of them scan well.
You can take a look at my gallery with examples of those films.
Anyway you should try every film and choose what you really like, enjoy doing it
.
You can take a look at my gallery with examples of those films.
Anyway you should try every film and choose what you really like, enjoy doing it
.ed1k
Well-known
Nope. In fact XP2 has a great tonal range as far as I know. C41 B&W looks different 'couse it doesn't have real silver grain - just dye particles like in colour film. It's better for scanning as you can use infrared channel for dust/scratch removal.Ray said:
As for second question about grain and sharpness - it vary depending on developer and the processing technique used. Generally Delta and Neopan should give finer grain under same processing. I have experience with Delta100 - it gives almost invisible grain on 8x10 prints with my process (35mm format condenser traditional enlargment), but I prefer AGFA APX100 despite the fact it gives distinct grain under the same conditions. I don't like coarse grain as someone may do, but there is a lot of different factors to consider. Tonal range is the answer for my preference of APX. Although Delta (and all Ilford's stuff as I heard) has wider lattitude - wide range of luminosity from the real objects will be packed in a narrow range of grays on the film. Sometimes Delta works great.
Eduard.
S
StuartR
Guest
I would recommend just trying XP2 first since you are not going to do it yourself anyway. The big problem with the C-41 black and white films is that 1. Drugstores will screw them up. 2. They are a pain to print in the traditional darkroom. 3. They are not as archivally sound as true black and white films. But, since none of these things sound like they are an issue to you (you are using a pro lab, are scanning not printing w/ an enlarger, and use mostly C-41 anyway), XP2 would be a very good choice. The grain is extremely fine, the sharpness is high, and you can shoot it from 200-1600. For a 400 speed traditional film, Tri-X and Neopan 400 are my top choices.
Here is a shot on XP2 using a hasselblad and 80 planar T*:
And here is some BW400CN (which I DO NOT recommend if you are going to make traditional prints...the base is orange...same color as the safelight...that means print times are extraordinarily long and contrast is low. This image requires a 90 second exposure at grade 4 on fiber paper).
Here is a shot on XP2 using a hasselblad and 80 planar T*:
And here is some BW400CN (which I DO NOT recommend if you are going to make traditional prints...the base is orange...same color as the safelight...that means print times are extraordinarily long and contrast is low. This image requires a 90 second exposure at grade 4 on fiber paper).
nrb
Nuno Borges
great work, Stuart
Nuno
Nuno
peter_n
Veteran
Great stuff (as always) Stuart!harmsr said:
Ray, you might want to ask your local lab what developer they use in their B&W development tanks. I've used pro labs both in LA and here in Boston, and I've found myself restricted to certain films because they work well with whatever is the standard soup at the lab. So from my experience Neopan 400 is excellent with XTOL. Other combinations I've tried - not so good: HP5+ was a disaster, my local 1 hr. lab did a better job with C-41 film than the pro labs.
FWIW I've given up on pro labs.
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
I'm no expert, but since making the switch from Tri-X to Neopan I've been very happy. The lab where I get my film developed is Fuji branded so perhaps they've probably tailored their developing to Fuji emulsions. Neopan consistently has less grain and more contrast than Tri-X developed at the same place.
S
StuartR
Guest
Thanks Peter and Nuno!
Reading Fuji's promo literature (not necessarily an unbiased source), Neopan 400 was formulated to be very forgiving of developing agent, time, and agitation. That said, Tri-x is pretty good about that as well. The Delta and Tmax films are not that way. When handing your negs over to someone else, it is always nice to have an idea of what they are going to do to them. E6 and C-41 are set processes, which makes things a bit easier, but Peter is right, it pays to find out what they are using at the lab, or even ask them what comes out best for them. If the guys at the lab consistently think that HP5 or Neopan or Tmax makes the best prints, then chances are that is the film they really know what they are doing with and works the best in their chemistry.
Reading Fuji's promo literature (not necessarily an unbiased source), Neopan 400 was formulated to be very forgiving of developing agent, time, and agitation. That said, Tri-x is pretty good about that as well. The Delta and Tmax films are not that way. When handing your negs over to someone else, it is always nice to have an idea of what they are going to do to them. E6 and C-41 are set processes, which makes things a bit easier, but Peter is right, it pays to find out what they are using at the lab, or even ask them what comes out best for them. If the guys at the lab consistently think that HP5 or Neopan or Tmax makes the best prints, then chances are that is the film they really know what they are doing with and works the best in their chemistry.
harmsr
M5 Nut
Thank you guys very much for all the comments, it really has helped me make my initial decision.
I think that I will start out with Neopan for a true B&W, based on the above comments and the lab being most familiar with its development.
However, you guys have also convinced me to try XP2 and the normal C41 processing.
I'll post some photos after I shoot them.
Thanks again,
Ray
I think that I will start out with Neopan for a true B&W, based on the above comments and the lab being most familiar with its development.
However, you guys have also convinced me to try XP2 and the normal C41 processing.
I'll post some photos after I shoot them.
Thanks again,
Ray
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Hi I'd go for something like Neopan or TMY
That's TMY 400 in Rodinal
And below is Neopan in Rodinal:
Neopan has a tiny bit more grain than the Kodak.
Also I'm not sure about the wisdom of using XP2 as I can't see what real advantage it will have over desaturating colour C41 as both have smoother looking dye cloud structures, if you want a gritty sharp journalistic look try Tri x or even Foma 400.
That's TMY 400 in Rodinal
And below is Neopan in Rodinal:
Neopan has a tiny bit more grain than the Kodak.
Also I'm not sure about the wisdom of using XP2 as I can't see what real advantage it will have over desaturating colour C41 as both have smoother looking dye cloud structures, if you want a gritty sharp journalistic look try Tri x or even Foma 400.