Newbie M3 B&W film rec

[CopperB]

I've just purchased an M3 and J8 50/f2 lens, I'm a newbie to RF and shooting film in general. Steep learning curve ahead. There are so many varieties of film mentioned here. I know I want to shoot B&W but am at a loss about which type of film I'm best to begin with. Suggestions?

😕

 

[david.elliott]

Well, without knowing what sort of photographs you will be taking (contrast? ev value?), I'll go ahead and recommend arista premium 400 from freestyle photo. It is rebadged tri-x, a classic b&w film.

See this link

Congrats on your purchases.

 

[mfogiel]

What David said, in case you want to scan only, you might begin with a film you give to a lab, like Ilford XP2, but if you want to develop yourself, Tri X is certainly a good start, remember to keep the development on the short side, to avoid overly dense negatives.

 

[Tom A]

If you are going to "soup" the film yourself - go for Tri-X or Arista Premium 400 as mentioned and get some D76. Use it 1:1 and try either at 10 min or 11 min and see whats suits you. 10 000's shooters cant be all wrong - including some of the masters of photo journalism.
Use a lot of film, set yourself a goal to shoot at least a couple of rolls a week and develop them quickly enough that you "remember" the circumstances around the shots - f-stops, speed, shadows and lights. Look at what other people have done - go to Flickr and look at sites like Tri X, 5063, black and white, etc. Best teaching aid I have ever seen - both for what was done right and the screw-ups.

 

[payasam]

You can't do better than follow the advice of mfogiel and Tom A. I'll only point out that camera and lens have nothing to do with choice of film.

 

[RichardB]

Tri-X. Great film for any 35mm application.-Dick

 

[Roger Hicks]

For scanning, XP2 (no silver grain).

For general use in wet printing, HP5 Plus or Tri-X, depending on which is more easily available (I prefer HP5, my wife prefers Tri-X).

For excellent tonality at low cost, Fomapan 200, though it's only 200 in speed-increasing developers such as DD-X.

Even if you are not doing your own developing at first, you might care to look at the background on developing, to see how it affects the film: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps neg development 1.html

Cheers,

R.

 

[payasam]

You may find, CopperB, that the learning curve is not so steep after all.

 

[rxmd]

And it's actually quite an enjoyable learning curve, because darkroom work is fun and you get to shoot lots of pictures.

 

[CopperB]

thanks so much for all the info, links etc. I hope you're right payasam. I'm very excited to get started.

 

[Sanders McNew]

For excellent tonality at low cost, Fomapan 200, though it's only 200 in speed-increasing developers such as DD-X.

Roger pointed me to Fomapan 200 in
35mm a number of years ago and it
was advice well-taken. It has the
added advantage of drying flat as a
pancake. Shoot it at EI 100 and
process in Rodinal for a classic look
with luminous highlights and open
shadows.

 

[martin s]

Tom, why do you recommend d76 over for example Rodinal or XTOL? Most people seem to, I never really understood why though.

martin

 

[rxmd]

I guess the D76 vs. Rodinal thing comes from being American or German - whatever you're used to 😉 Rodinal is just as good, maybe a bit more grainy, but it keeps longer, seems easier with the dosages, and is easily used as a one-shot developer.

And XTOL is good, but I wouldn't recommend to a beginner because if you leave it standing for some time and your bottle has air in it, it suddenly goes bad without you noticing, so you have to process film regularly to make sure that you're using it up, and you have to keep track of your bottles a little bit.

 

[david.elliott]

For a first developer, I highly recommend diafine. It keeps forever, is cheap, and super easy to use. Also gives most films a speed boost, which I find very helpful. I have shot tri-x with it from iso values of 400 to 3200 and they all look good in diafine.

 

[Mcary]

thanks so much for all the info, links etc. I hope you're right payasam. I'm very excited to get started.

Next time you get the chance go to your local public Library and see if they have the old "1970s" Life or Time/Life Book's on photography both are excellent sources for learning the basic's of B&W photography.

 

[rxmd]

And don't spend too much time reading stuff on the Internet. 😉

 

[CopperB]

For scanning, XP2 (no silver grain).

For general use in wet printing, HP5 Plus or Tri-X, depending on which is more easily available (I prefer HP5, my wife prefers Tri-X).

For excellent tonality at low cost, Fomapan 200, though it's only 200 in speed-increasing developers such as DD-X.

Even if you are not doing your own developing at first, you might care to look at the background on developing, to see how it affects the film: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps neg development 1.html

Cheers,

R.

So why is no silver grain important if you're scanning?

 

[CopperB]

And don't spend too much time reading stuff on the Internet. 😉

Yeah. Right. 😀

 

[rxmd]

Two reasons. The first is that scanners have a technology called ICE for dust removal. With conventional B&W films, the scanner picks up the silver crystals as dust (because they're opaque to infrared light I think) and the quality deteriorates significantly. With XP2 you can scan with dust removal. The second reason is that due to the crystalline structure of the silver layer of conventional B&W films, there may be interferences between the spatial structure of this silver layer and the resolution of the scanner's CCD element. This depends largely on the film and developer and on your scanner's resolution. With XP2 you don't have this problem because the information is technically stored there in a "colour layer" that is arranged a little differently.

(Actually it's the same for XP2 and other chromogenic B&W films such as Kodak BW400CN etc.; the difference is that XP2 is also easy to print in a conventional darkroom, because it doesn't have the orange base layer of BW400CN etc. that is difficult to print through.)

 

[Tom A]

Tom, why do you recommend d76 over for example Rodinal or XTOL? Most people seem to, I never really understood why though.

martin

The D76 and variations of it (ID11 etc) gives a very good tonal range - even for a first time user. It is quite forgiving regarding over/under exposure and you can use it with a variety of films, if you want to.
Rodinal is a bit more "picky" and with with 400 asa films tends to get grainy - very sharp edged grain but noticeble - even in smaller enlargements.
Xtol is nice - but somehow it doesn't work for me, not the edge of the Rodinal nor the tonality of the D76 - but that is just my opinion - others may (and will) differ on this.
I am also a bit concerned with availability of developers and I rather get used to one that I can mix from scratch if needed. D76/Id 11/Beutler etc are easy to make and thus ensure a long time supply without being held hostage by manufacturers.