Differences between currently available B&W film?

[Paddy C]

I'll admit this is a bit lazy. I know I should probably buy a bunch, run tests, blah blah blah. Don't feel like it.

I'm wondering what the main differences are between the following films, other things being equal. In other words, what are the advantages in relation to the "look" that each film gives.

I'm asking because I'm getting back into to shooting MF and away from 35mm where Tri-X was all I've shot the past few years. Prior to that, I used to shoot only Across and Neopan in MF. I have shot some HP5 which I found quite nice for portraits. And I always loved the results with Neopan (sigh) and Acros.

Primary subjects will be general (portraits, misc./casual) and landscapes (think contemporary urban type landscape, not pretty fields and trees).

How does TMAX compare to Delta, Delta to HP5, TMAX to Across, etc.

For landscapes I'm looking for that long tonal range, great sharpness, lots of detail. For portraits/general I do like a creamy/classic look. I don't like high-contrast black and white—never been my thing.

Should I just stick with the Acros/HP5 combo?

 

[ibcrewin]

Look on Flickr for examples. The reality is it all depends. You can soup the same film in 3 different developers and with different agitations, dilutions etc. and you'll end up with different results.

That said, try looking up examples in flickr.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Grainier, less grainy; faster, slower; more or less latitude for over- and under-exposure; sharper, less sharp; bigger or smaller 'developer repertoires' (developers in which they behave well); differences in tonality. That'll do for a start.

Without wishing to be unduly rude, how lazy are you? You might find this useful, but it does take a few minutes to read: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/choosing bw films.html

Cheers,

R.

 

[Tim Gray]

T-Max, Delta, and Acros will generally be finer grained and sharper than their conventional grained equivalents: Plus-X, FP4+, Tri-X, and HP5+.

Contrast in most of these films is what you make of it - exposure and development. If you want less contrast and more shadow detail, increase exposure some and reduce development accordingly.

If you don't want a lot of grain, but want the flexibility of ISO 400, I'd recommend T-Max 400. Should be a wonderful film for landscapes, urban or otherwise. It really is fine grained with high resolution. Especially in MF.

For portraits, it should also work, but if you want something a bit more classic looking, Tri-X or HP5+ if you need ISO 400, and maybe FP4+ or even PanF+ if slower is ok. That being said, even though these films have differences, they can be somewhat smaller than what some people make them out to be.

I'd try out the new T-Max 400 if you haven't yet. It was released in 2007 and is a really great film. I still use a lot of Tri-X for many situations, but T-Max now has a place for certain situations.

 

[tlitody]

If you like the creamy look for portraits try HP5 developed in PMK. Contrast is very well controlled, especially on VC paper but scanning too.

 

[Paddy C]

Look on Flickr for examples. The reality is it all depends. You can soup the same film in 3 different developers and with different agitations, dilutions etc. and you'll end up with different results.

That said, try looking up examples in flickr.

This started the problem actually. I saw an unusual (I thought) film and developer combo (thinking it was Tri-X in XTOL) a while ago and thought it wonderful.

I find flickr to be a bad way to get an idea of how a film looks due to all the variables involved in getting that film from camera to screen.

As you (and Roger below) say, the permutations and, therefore, end results are numerous. I was looking for a way to settle on say two, with the knowledge they'd do what I was looking for, and work from there.

Without wishing to be unduly rude, how lazy are you? You might find this useful, but it does take a few minutes to read: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subsc...w films.html

Lazy in that I was running in circles trying to determine where to start and wondered if there may be a more direct route to the answer (or at least the starting point). Thanks for the link. It is a bit long, however, would you mind condensing it two a couple lines? 😉

Tim, thanks for that info. That was basically what I was looking for in a way.

 

[---f]

Here's a better question for me.

I was thinking of buying this Acros 100 in MF. It's $3/roll in 120 at Freestyle. I just want a film that's reliable. I like how it looks in 35mm. So much so I have 400 rolls of it. If the MF responds as well. Great, I'm in.

Also, ultrafineonline has their house brand of 120 for $2/roll. Anyone have any experience with it? Fairly comparable to the general films we all seem to be using here from Fuji, Kodak etc...?

 

[Tim Gray]

I don't think Tri-X in XTOL is all that unusual of a combo. Probably because that's what I use 🙂 XTOL really isn't anything that exotic. It's a lot like D76, with minor differences, but on the whole, similar.

It might be worth it though to pick up 4 or 5 different types of film and shoot the same subject, just to get a sense of what they are like.

Fireboy - if you are happy with Acros at $3/roll, I wouldn't touch the ultrafine stuff with a ten foot poll. Unless that extra dollar is really important. Fuji, Kodak, and Ilford all make top quality products, and an extra dollar or two is definitely worth it if you like the particularly product.