B&W info

[andy1100xx]

Hi all
Brand new to all this RF stuff , I haven't even got my gear yet (just bought a Bessa R2 and a CV 40 1.4 off this forum and now waiting anxiously for delivery) but already I have a few questions.

I have bought my RF mainly for black & white photojournalism type use - candids, street scenes, that sort of thing. I am aiming for the contrasty moody look that B&W film is so good at.

What B&W film would you recommend for this type of use or, if this is too wide a question, what would you use and why? Some pictures would be great to see.

Also, I do not have my own darkroom and have zero experience in developing techniques and jargon. I will be using a local pro lab for developing but would like some guidance on what I should be asking them for to get the best results.

Apologies if these are real basic questions, I've gleaned some relevant info from the net but always prefer first hand comments.

Thanks in advance.

 

[back alley]

save your money and start off by using a b&w chromogenic film such as ilford's xp2. there are lots of samples in my gallery.

it's a c41 film so you can use a 1 hour lab, get scans done too.
look for a lab that is self contained. i used the one in walmart locally. the lab was upstairs, (glass) walled off completely and you could see the modern ventilation system at work.
clean negs and scans for about 10 bucks cdn.

rate it at about 200 to 250 to start. shoot like this for about 6 months and then change things if you want.

my 2 cents...
joe

oh, and welcome to the forum.

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

Andy,

If you are not going to develop your own B&W I would recommend Ilford XP-2 C-41 process film.

When you do start to develop your own I would suggest Tri-X rated at 1600 ISO and developed in Diafine.

Get ready for a bunch of different suggestions from others!!!

Wayne

P.S. I see that Joe types faster than I do. 😉

 

[wlewisiii]

I'll concurr with starting with C-41 B&W film, however I don't particularily like the Ilford product. I find the Kodak BW400CN gives me better results, especially if I intend to use a 1 hour lab (Walgreens, Target, etc) and that it scans better as well.

What you might wish to do is pick up a couple of rolls of each and see which you prefer and, perhaps more importantly, which one your lab does a better job processing.

Then once you begin to develope your own, try Plus-X at EI400 in Diafine. Very yummy stuff.

William

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

I like both XP2 and BW400CN for different conditions. XP2 seems to perform well on brilliant days With good detail in highlights and shadow. BW400CN has come through for me in the winter months. Both seem to benefit from a little overexposure.

For auto shots in B&W I like XP2 best.

You can see examples of both in my gallery. Try them and pick your favorite.

 

[tetrisattack]

If you're just getting started, then start modestly. XP2's a great idea, ask for a CD-Rom instead of prints. If you really want to do the right thing, try Tri-X and see if the lab will develop in D-76. Many labs seem to use XTOL, which doesn't mean much; it's also a great developer.

But if shooting b&w without a darkroom is, as the proverb goes, like owning a leash without the puppy, then certainly shooting b&w and not processing it yourself is like windowshopping at the pet store!

Prepare to spend a little money. If this turns out to be your thing, that is, if you really enjoy the look and feel of b&w and want to take it further, get photoshop or photoshop elements and see how much you can improve your lab scans. Then, get a film scanner to save some on lab costs and bring things further under your control. If you still want to get in deeper, buy a film developing kit - tank, spiral, thermometer, your choice of chemicals. Practically everything else can be improvised, including the dark space where you load the film.

This is the beginning of a wonderful, fulfilling hobby. Good luck with your camera. 🙂

 

[Doug]

I like both XP2 and BW400CN for different conditions. XP2 seems to perform well on brilliant days With good detail in highlights and shadow. BW400CN has come through for me in the winter months.

Interesting comment, Bob, and I think you're right! I've liked XP for a couple decades, and some recent trials of the Kodak chromogenic have done well where the light also contributes to that moody look (my "swap print" image below for example). Wonder what it is that does that. I set the meter to 250 for any ISO400 C-41 process film to bump up the shadow detail a little.

 

[Roger Hicks]

This makes it unanimous: XP2. Incidentally XP2 is about 1/3 stop faster than the Kodak chromogenics I have tested it against.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[TPPhotog]

Another vote for XP2 rated at 250 and souped at 400!

 

[JasonC]

Correct me if I am wrong. XP2 is designed to print on true B&W paper, and current Kodak C41 B&W films are designed to print on color paper (w/ orange mask). So if your lab does not calibrate their machine for XP2, your print will have sepia tone. FYI.

Jason.

 

[sljm]

Xp2 for me too ! Its also easy to scan !

 

[andy1100xx]

Thanks for the welcome and thanks for the good advice - some options to try here.

XP-2 sems to be a favourite but I'm a bit confused - there was mention of using it at 250, but does this mean set at 250 on the camera but still processed as 400 or set at 400 and developed at 250 or what?

Also, I know that it's not possible to develop Tri-X at your normal supermarket developer but I have a pro lab local to me that I plan to have all my films developed at regardless and I'm sure they would be able to meet specific needs for developing Tri-X. Tetrisattack touched on it

............ If you really want to do the right thing, try Tri-X and see if the lab will develop in D-76. Many labs seem to use XTOL, which doesn't mean much; it's also a great developer.

This sounds impressive but could be Swahili for all I know 🙂
If I wanted to experiment with Tri-X what would I actually say to my lab to get them to develop it properly?


BTW, I've come from the Digital SLR world so have already been engulfed by the whole photoshop thing. On many DSLR's post processing is a necessary part of obtaining the correct image and It'll be interesting to see if I will have a use for it when using film but for some reason I'm not keen to go down this route, feels like cheating somehow 😀

 

[back alley]

pro labs are great but usually expensive.
that was my only reservation about using one.
c41 is fast cheap and usually close by.

in the beginning the best learning is by shooting film and evaluating the results.
going the cheaper route usually means being able to shoot more film.

joe

 

[DerekF]

XP-2 sems to be a favourite but I'm a bit confused - there was mention of using it at 250, but does this mean set at 250 on the camera but still processed as 400 or set at 400 and developed at 250 or what?

Also, I know that it's not possible to develop Tri-X at your normal supermarket developer but I have a pro lab local to me that I plan to have all my films developed at regardless and I'm sure they would be able to meet specific needs for developing Tri-X. Tetrisattack touched on it

This sounds impressive but could be Swahili for all I know 🙂
If I wanted to experiment with Tri-X what would I actually say to my lab to get them to develop it properly?

Andy,

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if you're new to all this and you're just starting out, buy a couple of rolls of Tri-X (my personal favorite) or XP2 (never tried it) and shoot at their rated speeds. If you feel like it, try some under- or over-exposing on the same roll and keep notes. Don't overly complicate things when starting out. If you are bringing your film to a pro lab and you've shot according to the film's rated speed, there should be no need to give them special instructions. Tri-X should be familiar to any lab.

 

[wilt]

Tri-X in D76. Stear away from labs. Get a Paterson tank and develop yourself to get control over as many variables as possible. It really ain't that difficult to develop yourself and get quite good results.

Start with the suggestions for dev time that come with the film.

Next: change to Rodinal 1+50 (which has been my favourite for the last year or two). Or try another film. I like Efke KB 100 as an alternative to Tri-X.

Have fun!

 

[dcsang]

save your money and start off by using a b&w chromogenic film such as ilford's xp2. there are lots of samples in my gallery.

it's a c41 film so you can use a 1 hour lab, get scans done too.
look for a lab that is self contained. i used the one in walmart locally. the lab was upstairs, (glass) walled off completely and you could see the modern ventilation system at work.
clean negs and scans for about 10 bucks cdn.

rate it at about 200 to 250 to start. shoot like this for about 6 months and then change things if you want.

my 2 cents...
joe

oh, and welcome to the forum.

I would agree with everything except the WalMart statement 😀

I remember taking XP2 into my local WalMart - they looked at the cannister and said "What's this?"
"C-41 film" I replied.
They looked again at the cannister with the standard puzzled look when someone doesn't know exactly what they're looking at.
"Are you sure" they asked
"Yes" I replied.

:bang:

The prints looked like, well, I'll not use the word here in a public forum but I think you know where I'm coming from.

Take your C-41 film to a lab that knows what they're doing with C-41 film 🙂

Cheers
Dave

 

[canonetc]

"XP-2 sems to be a favourite but I'm a bit confused - there was mention of using it at 250, but does this mean set at 250 on the camera but still processed as 400 or set at 400 and developed at 250 or what?" -Andy1100xx

Yes Andy, they mean set your camera ASA at 250, and have lab process film normally at 400.

I don't personally know on a techinical level why XP2 sould be done that way. Anyone here who does I'd love to hear the reasons. Whenever I use XP2 I do the same thing, rate it at 250, but to know why is even better...

Cheers,

C.

 

[tetrisattack]

This sounds impressive but could be Swahili for all I know 🙂
If I wanted to experiment with Tri-X what would I actually say to my lab to get them to develop it properly?

BTW, I've come from the Digital SLR world so have already been engulfed by the whole photoshop thing. On many DSLR's post processing is a necessary part of obtaining the correct image

At first, you could practically say nothing! Any pro lab that doesn't know how to effectively develop tri-x needs your reconsideration. 🙂 After you do a couple of rolls and get a feel for the typical "normal" look, that's when you should start doing tricky things and paying for custom lab orders. If you do enough of this, you'll start to see the economy of home development and scanning.

Many b&w looks are created by essentially abusing the film or otherwise deviating from normal exposure/development procedures. Tri-X has a nominal speed of 400, so you might try shooting it at 800 or 1600 and asking the lab technician to "push" the processing, which is the proper term for purposeful overdevelopment to compensate for underexposure. You could also try the opposite, exposing at 200 or 100, and ask for a pull.

You might also ask what developer they use, and see if they have any others available. The particular developer used has a huge impact on your results; some developers leave behind extremely sharp grain or act as a solvent to smooth the grain at some expense of sharpness. Other developers, like Diafine, enhance the effective speed of the film. D-76 and Xtol are pretty standard developers, and many swear that tri-x and d-76 are even a legendary combo. Developer dilution is yet another variable.

And this is a long shot, but you could also ask about how they agitate during development. Agitation refers to how the chemical bath is sloshed around during the process and has an important effect on the contrast of your negatives. Chances are, if it's a machine, it's continuous agitation, whereby the chemicals are kept constantly turbulent. People who home process usually invert the tank a number of times every x minutes, and interesting effects can be obtained by letting the developer sit stagnant for various periods of time, especially with certain developers like Rodinal at high dilution.

Sadly, even with a pro lab, it's likely that the only variables you'll be able to control will be film choice, the speed at which you shoot it, what degree of push/pull, and maybe developer. All the arcane (read: fun) stuff might require you to process your own film, which isn't such a bad prospect.

Regarding your comment about DSLRs and photoshop: this prior experience is valuable and post-processing is equally as important in b&w, either in the wet darkroom or on a computer.

Good luck with this, post images when you get your camera. 🙂

 

[Doug]

XP-2 sems to be a favourite but I'm a bit confused - there was mention of using it at 250, but does this mean set at 250 on the camera but still processed as 400 or set at 400 and developed at 250 or what

Hi, Andy -- C41 is a standardized process, and this is its major strength I think. Just imagine if Agfa, Kodak, and Fuji for instance all had different incompatible chemical processes for their color neg films, and each different film within each company's lineup called for a different time in the soup! (This is actually not far off the wild variations in processing traditional black & white films).

It is possible to ask for special handling in C41, say a 1 or 2 stop push but this is for emergencies when you either made a mistake in your meter setting or took a chance in really dim light. But generally you just take it in and give the usual instructions about print size & surface, etc. You can set your meter to whatever speed you prefer, whatever gives you the best results the way your meter works and the way you use it.

But one thing to keep in mind is that C41 process films tend to have very little tolerance for underexposure, and a lot of tolerance for overexposure. You can use that to your benefit, and this is why some of us are "generous" with exposure and set our meters to 1/3 or 2/3 step or even 1 full step lower film speed. Keep an eye on your results as you try some variations. 🙂

 

[andy1100xx]

Thanks all, this is really very useful.

I am familier with the concept of pushing and pulling a film and getting the lab to do the same but the idea of doing that and getting the lab to expose at the standard ISO is a new one to me but makes sense. I must admit, I really like the idea of playing with different variations to see the effect it gives.

Just one other thing (for the time bieng at least). If I have the option, what paper should i ask for for the different models of films (HP2, Tri-X etc)?


BTW, there are some beautiful images in the gallaries i have looked through, an inspiration 🙂