Great BW 800 Film needed

[arbib]

Our Family is having a reunion in a few weeks. I am taking my DSLR, AF Film and 35mm MF Film. (The AF film is for my wife. She will have a D-Video Camera too.) I am interested in using my Canon EF with a 50mm F/1.4 and B&W film for candid's., my DSLR is more for the Posed Family Portraits and vacation pictures.

So I am thinking of getting some great natural light Candid's of my Mom and Dad. They are OLD. And this may well be the last time we are all together.

I need a 800 film that can scan fairly clean with a commercial scanner that produces files about 3600x2400 pixels. I don't think the scanner has an on/off for noise reduction according to the lab tech. So I guess it is always on.

I have tried and like 400uc B&W, but I'm not sure of the indoor lighting at my parents home. So I am thinking 800 instead.

Any suggestions are welcome.
Peter

 

[rich815]

Pushing Tri-X or HP5+ should work fine. Or consider Neopan 1600 and get another stop. I shoot the latter at 1000-1600 and get great results. A little different than the first two pushed but right there in terms of quality. What you'll have to be most careful with is the development so as to not get too grainy or contrasty, and of course what kind of scanning will be done. Many people push to get more grain and contrast. From your description I'm guessing this not to be the case?

Two recent examples:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/130866645/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/130866606/

Most important thing to realize is you'll likely not get smooth, creamy tones like the Kodak 400CN (I think that's what you mean, not UC). If that's what you want consider your lighting, maybe open a few shades or curtains in the house, use a faster lens, maybe some fill flash and use a slower 400 speed film.

 

[John the Monkey]

I'd second the recommendation for HP5+ (I've not shot Tri-X, so can't comment on that). HP5+ seems to me to push quite nicely;


(HP5+ Developed in Ilfotec DD-X, 10mins @ 20°c (i.e. 800ISO), 4 inversions each minute)

It's probably more contrasty than the Neopan 1600, at least looking at Rich's shots.

I think it might be worth running some test rolls of each film you're considering - at least that way you can see whether you have the "look" you want.

Rich - that neopan looks great - really interesting tonality, it seems very rich (pardon the pun). I reckon I'll try some of that myself.

 

[titrisol]

Neopan 1600 shot as 800 and developed in DDX, Xtol, D76 or something like that will suit your needs

 

[arbib]

Those are all great suggestions. But the process will be done by a commercial lab. Not sure if I can get custom developing and Pushing or Pulling. Maybe an Online lab is the way to go. ??

Any good C41 B&W films at 400 or 800 worth looking at also ??

 

[Trius]

While I generally prefer "true" b&w emulsions, take a look at this shot by our own Nando, who used Kodak Ultra 400 and converted to b&w ... not an 800 film, I grant you, but the lighting was pretty low and tricky, and the results are wonderful. Kodak makes an 800 speed C41 film, as well.

If you truly do need an 800 speed film, then GeneW has used a private label (Black's, aka Fuji) for these shots ... a bit more contrast, but depending on the lighting it might be a good choice or you could work with curves in post-processing.

This would give you lab processing/scanning with an ISO 800 (or 400, as the case may be) film, no worry about special processing instructions, etc.

I have used Fujicolor 1600 shot at 800 and found that it probably is better shot at 1000 or 1250 ... in very dim light it might be a good choice, too.

 

[kully]

Never tried 800 (400 or 1600 for me).

At 1600 Neopan [1600] is more contrasty than HP5+, less grain too (DD-X).

I'd go for Neopan first and HP5+ second (I say this with a heavy heart because I've been slapping myself with joy at what HP5+ can do for ages).

Neopan1600 is a pain in the bum with the short development times though.

 

[venchka]

And now...

And now...

...for something a little different but also mentioned above.

Ilford XP2 Super or Kodak BW400CN (Wal-Mart even sells the Kodak film.) My choice is the Ilford. Get a few rolls early. Ilford claims that the film will work @ ASA 800. Test it and see. I know it works at 400, 200 & 100. I often use a LumiQuest bounce attachment or LumiQuest softbox on a Sunpak 383 flash. LumiQuest is online. The combination works.

My vote is for Ilford XP2 Super and bounce/diffused flash as required. YMMV.

 

[rich815]

...for something a little different but also mentioned above.

Ilford XP2 Super or Kodak BW400CN (Wal-Mart even sells the Kodak film.) My choice is the Ilford. Get a few rolls early. Ilford claims that the film will work @ ASA 800. Test it and see. I know it works at 400, 200 & 100. I often use a LumiQuest bounce attachment or LumiQuest softbox on a Sunpak 383 flash. LumiQuest is online. The combination works.

My vote is for Ilford XP2 Super and bounce/diffused flash as required. YMMV.

I personally have never been happy with those films at anything over 400 and often shoot them at 250 or 320. Above 400 the negs are very thin and pretty awfully IMO, with terrible noise in the shadows.

I think if the lighting is really as bad as you think it will be I agree that some fill or bounce flash will get you there with 400 speed films.

 

[venchka]

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

I personally have never been happy with those films at anything over 400 and often shoot them at 250 or 320. Above 400 the negs are very thin and pretty awfully IMO, with terrible noise in the shadows.

I think if the lighting is really as bad as you think it will be I agree that some fill or bounce flash will get you there with 400 speed films.

I said test it first. 😱 😉 😎 I agree with the 200-250-320 advice as well. One of these days I'll give the Ilford a try at 800. It might work if I'm after a gritty, raw, hard edge look. Given the grainless look of these C-41 films shot below 400, some grain might be good. But probably not for mom & dad portraits.

 

[arbib]

...for something a little different but also mentioned above.

Ilford XP2 Super or Kodak BW400CN (Wal-Mart even sells the Kodak film.) My choice is the Ilford. Get a few rolls early. Ilford claims that the film will work @ ASA 800. Test it and see. I know it works at 400, 200 & 100. I often use a LumiQuest bounce attachment or LumiQuest softbox on a Sunpak 383 flash. LumiQuest is online. The combination works.

My vote is for Ilford XP2 Super and bounce/diffused flash as required. YMMV.

I may have to use a flash, I should win a nice Sunpak 411 any minute now..I like the compactness and that it has a unique bonce/swivel head. I have looked at the Lumiquest localy.. may get it anyway for my 550ex / 540ez too.

I have been metering my home inside with one window shade open at 800, and I am getting f/5.6 - f/2 inside, not facing the window, and f/5.6-f/8 facing the window at 1/60s, So maybe 400 will be fine. Seems like I have a better choice of film too. XP2, 400CN, HP5+ (at rated speed).

This has helped me narrow down my choices by those who know these films beter than I.

 

[arbib]

While I generally prefer "true" b&w emulsions, take a look at this shot by our own Nando, who used Kodak Ultra 400 and converted to b&w ... not an 800 film, I grant you, but the lighting was pretty low and tricky, and the results are wonderful. Kodak makes an 800 speed C41 film, as well.

If you truly do need an 800 speed film, then GeneW has used a private label (Black's, aka Fuji) for these shots ... a bit more contrast, but depending on the lighting it might be a good choice or you could work with curves in post-processing.

This would give you lab processing/scanning with an ISO 800 (or 400, as the case may be) film, no worry about special processing instructions, etc.

I have used Fujicolor 1600 shot at 800 and found that it probably is better shot at 1000 or 1250 ... in very dim light it might be a good choice, too.

Thanks for that example of 400UC that was converted to BW. Great tonal range and great PS editing too. bringing out the best contrast and Dynamic range.

The Fuji 800 is a great shot too... May bring some of that with me. Just don't know how having off color balance converted to BW in my software will represent the tones. Maybe this is not a big concern, if I am planing to convert it to BW anyway.

 

[venchka]

PS: I love my Canon FD 50/1.4 for people pictures. Oh, tough choice between the Canon & the Nikkor. Use both of them. I wish I still had my Nikon FTn to pair with my Canon EF. I'm jealous!

 

[sepiareverb]

Can't speak to scanning the negs, but HP5 at 800 is perfectly fine. You should be able to find a lab that will run it as a push.

Microphen 1:1 is my favorite for HP5.

 

[arbib]

PS: I love my Canon FD 50/1.4 for people pictures. Oh, tough choice between the Canon & the Nikkor. Use both of them. I wish I still had my Nikon FTn to pair with my Canon EF. I'm jealous!

I don't use the Ftn with 50/1.4.... This is my wife's Dad camera/heirloom. So it stays on a shelf. the meter is DOA anyway. and I wish I had a Eye Level VF...(I exercise the shutter every few weeks though. Seems right on). But they are SILLY HIGH in resale used 😡 They were under $65.00 New in the late 60's. I have seen them sell for over $300.00 😱 But not under $200.00. CRazY PriCeIng IMO. I could see $100.00 in 7-8 KEH condition. But NOOOO !!.

 

[venchka]

Too bad about the FTn...get an F2!

I used my dad's heirloom camera (Koncia I) today to take pictures of my mom. Works like a charm. Doesn't look or work like it's approaching 60!

 

[GeneW]

I really like Superia 800 and, even better, Fuji Pro800Z, for this kind of shooting. It's remarkably fine grained when converted to B&W and it converts very nicely. Nice for scanning too because you can use Digital ICE if your scanner has it. I've taken lots of pics in mixed light and there's no problem converting to B&W. And if the lighting is a bit stronger and you don't need a full 800, you can drop the rating to 400 or 500 for slightly finer-grained results.

Gene

 

[varjag]

I'd agree that a good 400 ISO classic BW film exposed as 800 and processed in a speed enchancing developer would give you very good result.

 

[shadowfox]

Hope this gives you an idea, this is Ilford XP2 400 shot at 200ASA, no post-processing done:

 

[ray_g]

From what you told us, this seems to be a special event, not likely to happen again. That being said, I would personally shoot b/w film and push process (or use diafine?) if I were developing the film myself, and if I were comfortable with it, ie if I have done it many times before. If not, I would go with Gene's suggestion of Fuji Superia 800 (or Press 800), and convert to black and white in post. Or shoot with the DSLR. Or shoot with a rangefinder at iso 400, since you can probably handhold that one stop slower than the canon slr.