B & W Film

[spenny]

Everything but curiosity. I bought my first camera - 2 1/4 TLR in 1970 and have been hooked on photography ever since. Over the years I've owned and used everything from an 8 x10 Deardorf down to a Hasselblad and shot only B&W. In fact in my younger days I despised 35mm and color as unworthy of my artistic pretensions.

After about 15 years of this I moved to an apartment where I had to give up my darkroom. I stopped photographing for about 8 years when lo and behold along came the Digital Darkroom and it was only a little step from there to Digital cameras. I haven't bought any film for the last 5 years and presently own a Nikon D100 and much Nikon glass as well as a Minolta A2 for easy carrying around.

In the last year I have become restless about obsolesence, miles of menus, automation, batteries, size and weight etc. etc. and I developed a craving for something more basic and easy to lug around. Digital and film also have different personalities although this is kind of hard to explain in words. In the couple of months that I've been shooting film I have fallen in love with the rangefinder and the different way of shooting. I will probably always have a Digital point and shoot for parties and stuff like that

I know that when I scan film I am going to lose a bit of the film character but I still don't have a darkroom and I really don't fancy messing around with noxious fluids. Also I'm getting a bit long in the tooth so i love the size and weight of the rangefinders.

Sorry about the long post but you asked me a complicated question. By the way these are my first posts on this forum and it is joy to talk to thoughtful folks as opposed to the flaming on a couple of other forums I won't mention here. Thanks you people have really been helpful.

 

[GeneW]

Spenny, we must be blood brothers, or Rodinal brothers, or some such. It was digital that brought me back to photography as well, and I no longer want to set up a chemical darkroom. I'm working on fine tuning my scanning techniques to be able to create good B&W images from scans. Still working on it, but am learning a few things. One is that the developer and film is not as critical as negative density. Scanners don't like thick negatives. I'm aiming for thin negatives that still have plenty of shadow detail.

Gene

 

[yossarian]

It may be hard to find now, but if you want an "old school" look, the Bergger films are the old thick emulsion base, like Kodak Double X. The grain is pronounced, but there is texture galore and with mild overexposure loads of contrast.

It's all very personal, of course, but if you're not into old school, only one recommendation: Fuji Acros. Just don't underexpose it.

 

[vincentbenoit]

Spenny, we must be blood brothers, or Rodinal brothers, or some such. It was digital that brought me back to photography as well, and I no longer want to set up a chemical darkroom. I'm working on fine tuning my scanning techniques to be able to create good B&W images from scans. Still working on it, but am learning a few things. One is that the developer and film is not as critical as negative density. Scanners don't like thick negatives. I'm aiming for thin negatives that still have plenty of shadow detail.

Same here, after an interesting but eventually frustrating foray into digital capture I've now settled on a hybrid workflow based on film capture, developing the negs at home, scanning, digital darkroom processing and outsourced laser printing. After some optimisation of my developing and scanning techniques I'm now getting decent results from Tri-X developed in Rodinal. My scanner (a Canon FS4000US) actually does quite a good job with dense, high accutance negatives, which allows me to get the print look I'm after with minimal post-processing of the files.
Cheers
Vincent

 

[kaiyen]

You know, the main thing is getting your process dialed in. Get your EI pinned down so you get the minimum amount of exposure required for shadow detail. For what it's worth, I find that scanning gives me a 1/3 stop speed boost. Doing Zone-System-styl densitometer tests gave me, for instance, EI 64 with FP4 in Rodinal 1+50. A less-than-scientific test with the scanner gives me EI 80.

Then, develop as if you're going for a condenser enlarger, which means you'll want a slightly flatter negative, especially if you're used to printing on a diffusion enlarger.

Finally, I strongly urge you to look at higher-end scanning software. I use Vuescan myself. The ability to do mult-sampling (which I think your scanner does anyway even in NikonScan, but my CS IV does not) to deal with denser negatives and the increased control over the histogram is a key component of my process.

allan

 

[titrisol]

1. Are you planning on developing yourself?
If you are, I'd go with Neopan 400, HP5 or TriX develoed in D76 or any of its clones
If you are not, Xp2 is the way to go for me
2. Are you going to scan negatives or do real prints?
If you are going to scan then XP2 is better, and if you decide to use real film underdeveloping a bit may be helpful
If you are going to print yourself, then the sky is the limit

After five years of messing around with DSLRs I've just returned to film via
Leica M6 and Bessa R3a. It's been a long time since I shot any 35mm B&W film and I understand that some scan well and others not so well. Would appreciate any advice
concerning best choices in this regard. The scanner I am using is the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED. I am mostly interested in ISO 100 and 400 films although TMax 3200 looks interesting.

 

[david b]

Since buying an Xpan, I've been using HP5+ (rated at 250) and developing in Ilford ID-11 1+1 for 12 minutes with great success.

In my 503, I've been using Pan F+ and APX 100. I develope both of these films in Rodinal 1+50.

Good luck.

 

[spenny]

Thanks everybody. I'll be busy processing all this helpful info.

For Kaiyen: Just tried demo Vuescan and I'll be purchasing it. I find the Nikon Scan interface really cumbersome.

 

[kaiyen]

Glad I could help. Good luck with it, and if you have more questions hopefully I can help. If I can't, I'm sure others here can..

 

[canonetc]

True, using a Velvia scan as the basis for a B&W conversion might produce a superior monochrome tonality, however it'll also leave you with a smooth, textureless image. That's okay if you're into that kind of look, but many people (including me) actually like the grainy texture that only traditional silver-based B&W emulsion can provide. I for one find grainless B&W images almost as inadequate as Ken Rockwell's oversaturated pictures of boring static subjects. 😉
Cheers
Vincent

Hey, I don't want to detract from this thread much, but Vince's quote makes me think of Lenswork magazine. I like the magazine and the the incredible tonalities of the images, but am disappointed that the published results don;t seem possible by traditional printing methods (since most/all negs or prints are scanned and adjusted digitally before publishing/printing the magazine). Digital does sometimes leave something more to be desired. Honestly, some of the Lenswork images just FEEL....TOO perfect. Of course, I could just be whining about my own darkroom abilities... 🙂

I've not had much luck scanning negs using a flatbed. So I print then scan.

Chris
canonetc

 

[Kat]

I agree, canonetc. I find my P&S digicam's black and white pics too clean.

 

[GeneW]

I agree, canonetc. I find my P&S digicam's black and white pics too clean.

There are times when it's nice -- the digicam gives a kind of smooth, medium-format look, but I'm used to a bit of grit as well. The other day I posted a particularly grainy Tri-X fog shot on a forum where there are a few old timers, and a bunch of young (very talented) photographers who know only digital. One of the best of the young'uns suggested I should do something to tone down the grain. The old-timers said, no, we like it just like that, grain and all! The photo represented a divide between two generations of photographers.

This is the shot: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=19004&cat=500&page=2


Gene

 

[markinlondon]

Put me down as another oldtimer then, Gene. the grain in that shot really enhances the foggy atmosphere. I suppose you could add noise to a digicam shot in PS, but it's just not the same somehow.

Mark

 

[GeneW]

Put me down as another oldtimer then, Gene. the grain in that shot really enhances the foggy atmosphere. I suppose you could add noise to a digicam shot in PS, but it's just not the same somehow.

Mark

It's interesting how perception of 'grain' is being changed by digital.

BTW, neat avatar. What type of music do you play? (I've been fumbling away at finger-style folk for over 40 yrs ...)

Gene

 

[Trius]

While I think the grain in these shots is fine, I could also see foggy scenes like that done with a fine grain film such as Pan F+ or KB25 as a different way to go. That would be my preference, but it's a taste thing. I don't think digital does texture as well in scenes like this.

Trius

 

[GeneW]

While I think the grain in these shots is fine, I could also see foggy scenes like that done with a fine grain film such as Pan F+ or KB25 as a different way to go. That would be my preference, but it's a taste thing. I don't think digital does texture as well in scenes like this.

Trius

Couldn't agree more. If I'd had a choice, it would have used a finer-grain film but I had Tri-X loaded (and rated at 1000 no less) already on the go, so that's what I shot with.

I shot some fog scenes the previous day with a Canon 300D at iso100 and the results were excellent. No grain or noise at all.

Gene

 

[peter_n]

I agree too. I think it's a taste thing as opposed to a generational thing. I like your shot Gene but I might like it more with a bit less grain. And I'm an old timer... 😉

 

[taffy]

Is Acros 100 a T-grain film or is it a traditional emulsion?

 

[BrianShaw]

I am mostly interested in ISO 100 and 400 films although TMax 3200 looks interesting.

Now, *that's* latitude! I'm totally impressed by how open-minded you are!!