Which B&W film?

chilohm

chilohm

Jack Sloan
Local time
10:45 AM
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
154
2833228240_616d288121_b.jpg
Hi there
I have always shot in colour (mainly using Portra 160VC). I want to play with B&W and was wondering if anyone could recommend some film

I mainly shoot portraiture and it is usually outdoors. I always scan my negs. I like contrasty film and would like a grainy look for B&W. I have used HP5 for a few rolls and thought it was alright, but too "clean" for me.

Thanks,
Jack.
 
If you want grain and contrast trying souping your Hp5+ in Rodinal. Another suggestion would be APX - if you can find any. I would try the Rodinal route first. While you are shopping for Rodinal, try freestyles premium film which most seem to think is rebranded Tri-X
 
Last edited:
You should check out Tri-X. I found it to have a heavier grainy look which you might like. Also the contrast curve can be quite high with a good vigerous aggitation while developing. Tones are not too bad either.
 
Last edited:
Tri-X is not an easy film to work with, contrary to the common perception. Its look really depends on how the light was and how you exposed and finally how you're gonna develop it. One miss in any of those steps and the pictures won't come nearly as good as they should.

I would suggest Afga APX400 or 100 (sold as Arista2).
 
If you will not process yourself go for Ilford XP2 Super
Nice BW film, develops in C41 machines
Expose +1 for portrits and weddings ;)
 
I find all of the C-41 films, color or B&W, benefit from at least 1/3 stop all the way to 1 stop overexposure. C-41 film hates underexposure.

As someone hinted at above, contrast is more a function of development (developer, time & agitation) than a particular emulsion. Underexpose & overdevelop (classic "push" formula) and you'll get all the contrast and grain you want. HP5+, even in 4x5 and 120, responds well to this development plan.
 
just curious, if you scan negatives, why not do the B&W conversion from color vs shooting in B&W film. I could see if you were doing wet prints, but not not scans...
 
fstopstudios said:
just curious, if you scan negatives, why not do the B&W conversion from color vs shooting in B&W film. I could see if you were doing wet prints, but not not scans...
Click to expand...

There is a certain "look" to black and white film that is difficult to simulate in a Photoshop color conversion; indeed you can spend hundreds of dollars on software that does noting but simulate film.

Also, black and white film already has all its tones and color responses balanced out; they're known quantities that respond reliably from roll to roll. With color conversions, you have to personally go through and tweak each image.

Another benefit of black and white over color is resolution and sharpness: black and white does not have to split its image over color dye layers, or any other tom foolery, so tends to have a sharper look, even if the emulsion is technically lower resolution.

Finally, tradition. Black and white is what everyone first learns in school; it's the medium that many important photographic artists have used (and continue to use), and it's a processes that's simple enough to do yourself at home.
 
Personally, I don't think it makes any difference if you choose Tri-X, Arista Premium, HP5, or Neopan 400. They are all good and all available. You can learn to love any one of them.

Pick a standard developer like D-76, ID11, HC110. Learn to use it. Like the films, all are good and all are available.

If you don't intend to process your own film then ignore all of the above and just use XP2.
 
russianRF said:
There is a certain "look" to black and white film that is difficult to simulate in a Photoshop color conversion; indeed you can spend hundreds of dollars on software that does noting but simulate film.

Also, black and white film already has all its tones and color responses balanced out; they're known quantities that respond reliably from roll to roll. With color conversions, you have to personally go through and tweak each image.

Another benefit of black and white over color is resolution and sharpness: black and white does not have to split its image over color dye layers, or any other tom foolery, so tends to have a sharper look, even if the emulsion is technically lower resolution.

Finally, tradition. Black and white is what everyone first learns in school; it's the medium that many important photographic artists have used (and continue to use), and it's a processes that's simple enough to do yourself at home.
Click to expand...

Valid points-- esp. the point of tradition and DIY.

I intended my post to be more of a question rather than a statement and geared towards why one would opt for a chromogenic B&W vs color film/B&W conversion.

As for sharpness and time spent in post, I personally found scans of color negative work to be quicker and of better quality vs B&W native scans when producing inket prints. With that said, while I've owned a 4990, v700, V-ED, and coolscan 9000, I'm certainly not a scanning wiz by any stretch and rely on either the native Epson or Nikon software.
 
fstopstudios said:
I intended my post to be more of a question rather than a statement and geared towards why one would opt for a chromogenic B&W vs color film/B&W conversion.
Click to expand...

That is an easy one for me.

Shoot silver based b&w film if you develop your own because there are many options and parameters you can control.

Shoot chromogenic (C-41) b&w film if you let someone else develop it. C-41 has no variables in the processing. The last thing you want is some lab tech making random choices about how to process your film when he knows nothing about how it was shot or what you are looking for.
 
Bob Michaels said:
That is an easy one for me.

Shoot silver based b&w film if you develop your own because there are many options and parameters you can control.

Shoot chromogenic (C-41) b&w film if you let someone else develop it. C-41 has no variables in the processing. The last thing you want is some lab tech making random choices about how to process your film when he knows nothing about how it was shot or what you are looking for.
Click to expand...

And you can use ICE on C-41 film, a real plus for some.

I prefer a mixture of both, sometimes C-41, sometimes silver, some times slide.

//J
 
I like both Neopan 400 and Tri-X. In my workflow, they are interchangeable as far as developing goes and if anything I prefer the Neopan look, though Tri-X is less fussy about what you soup it in.





2423093601_30fe529186.jpg


Neopan 400 @ Ei 200 in Rodinal 1:50 Minimal agitation
 
Last edited:
New to B&W? Want to play? Go cheap. GOOGLE Freestyle Photo. Find the house brand 400 & 100 film that is Made in U.S.A. and sells for under $2/36 exp. roll.

Hint: Kodak makes it.
Hint: Treat it like Tri-X and Plus-X.
Enjoy the savings.

You may never need any other film.
 
How many types of film are there? That is how many answers you will get. No one film is better or easier to use than others, so anything you choose will be a good starting point. Look at photos posted here and elsewhere where they will tell you what film they used. When you see a consistent film that you like the look of, start with that one!

Then, ask what developer to use and the process will repeat itself. As said above, if you don't intend on developing it yourself, go for Ilford XP2, or if it is readily available, BW400CN by Kodak (although that film comes on an orange base, which makes it difficult to make wet prints from it.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom