B & W Film recomendations

[johnny9fingers]

Good Morning Folks,

I have done some research into B&W films and have kinda settled on Tri X, T Max, and HP 5. I will be shooting a variety of situations, low light, landscape and portrait, all with available light with my Isollete III. These films seem to have the features I would need, especially exposure forgiveness. Are there other films I have missed that would work better for a B & W newbie?
Thanks,
9fingers

 

[Kin Lau]

The Agfa Isolette's a medium format folder, so that list is about right. I'm shooting mostly APX100 for 120 format right now since I stocked up and it's cheap, but Agfa's discontinued APX100 in 120 format. When I run out of that, I'll probably try FP4+ or the JandC stuff for slow films.

I'll likely stick with Tri-X for iso 400 or better.

 

[canonetc]

Hi Johnny, I think your current choices are fine, and I second Kin lau's comments.

Something else to consider with film speed is the tonal range (of greys) and contrast (from pure white to rich blacks) in your images. By studying your images closer, say after shooting both HP5 and Kodak Tri-X, ask yourself (by looking at prints) which film has the tonality you prefer. Are the grey's smooth and buttery (which I find on T-max AND HP5, depending on lens quality) or do you prefer greater contrast (HP5)?

Studying your work closely and asking what gives you the best "artistic" expression that YOU like is important in the ongoing pursuit of photography (IMHO).

Also, when you wish, you might try some Arista 50. Pretty incredible stuff for full daylight images.

Cheers,

C.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I just have to put in a plug for Kodak BW400CN to add to the must try it list.

Bob

 

[fredus]

You might want to add neopan 400 ... All my B&W pic on my photoblog ar etaken with this film ... I couldn't live without it ! Tri-X is an essential as well of course (especially at 3200)

Fred

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I have done some research into B&W films and have kinda settled on Tri X, T Max, and HP 5. I will be shooting a variety of situations, low light, landscape and portrait, all with available light with my Isollete III. These films seem to have the features I would need, especially exposure forgiveness.

I think I know what you tried to mean by "features" of a film. TMax has no great exposure latitude, whereas Fuji Acros does, you may want to consider that as a substitute for what you're looking for.

Other films that have great exposure latitude and can give you great tones: Kodak Plus-X (ISO 125), Ilford XP2 Plus (ISO 400, C41 film), Ilford FP4+ (ISO 125), and Fomapan 400.

 

[xcapekey]

i'd go with HP5...it's my standard...has good latitude and is very forgiving...

whenever i shoot it in 120, i notice i have to increase the development by about 15-20% compared to it's 35mm counterpart...

agfa 100 is a good film if you have enough light for it...

i tend to shoot in dark situations so i always have hp5 loaded...

too bad you can't get neopan 1600 in 120....

 

[Toby]

I would plump for either Tri X or HP5 for starters and leave it at that. I think its more important to explore one film thoroughly than flit about between brands and learn very little. Try using one film for a few weeks or even months in a variety of situations. Learn what it will do and what it won't do. Experiment with exposure in tricky lighting conditions, consider having a 'personal iso' if you experience frequent yet consistant exposure problems compare other films only when you have a good feel for one type. Most 35mm RF'ers use Tri X or HP5 there are very good reasons for this.

 

[anandi]

A quick testament to XP2 super's exposure latitude:
On Friday night my son was born (a little earlier than expected) and took my Canon A-1 loaded with XP2s along with a digicam. I was pretty much focused on other things so didn't notice that I'd left the exposure compensation dial to the 1/2 setting when I started shooting right after the birth. About 8 pics in I did notice and figured I'd put back the exposure back to regular and then change the ISO setting so that the whole roll would be consistently underexposed, then I'd tell the lab to pull it. But I'd set the ISO to 200 instead of what it should have been (800). So the upshot was 1/4 of the roll was 1 stop underexposed from 400 and 3/4 of the roll was 1 stop overexposed. After talking it over from my local photo store, they processed the roll at 400 and amazingly most of the shots were bang on. The underexposed shots were a little dark in the end, but pretty good nonetheless, the rest of the roll has some of the nicest shots that I've ever taken. Can't wait to start playing with HP5.

 

[Richard Black]

My question is do you plan to develop your film? If not, do you have confidence in the lab you have chosen to develop the film. I use a lot of C41 processable film and I have a choice of three labs, two do 120, for development. I have discovered a nice lab that I can send the film to that is not C41 and they do a special job and select the "best" developer for the film. As much as you might try to select only a few types of film, if you don't control the development, it might be a wasted effort. Good luck, btw, I like all the films you selected, but I am partial to the new Tri X!

 

[johnny9fingers]

Thanks for the great advice everyone. I'm excited about learning black & white photograpy, and have stocked up on Tri-X and HP5 film. What Toby said makes sense and I plan to heed your advice and work with Tri-X for a while, then try the HP5. I have noted all the other suggestions and will work my through many of these films as well. Thanks again,
9fingers