My new film collection!

Hi Folks,

After a little reading, I decided to go out and purchase a whole load of
black and white film to see how each film reacts to different light, and
what I like about each film.

The films I bought are:

Kodak TMAX 100 Pro
Ilford FP4 Plus 125
Ilford HP5 Plus 400
Kodak TMAX 400
Kodak Tri-X 400 Pro

Does anyone have any exerience of these different films? Any tips with them?

I also wanted to get a Fujifilm Neopan 400CN, but the sales assistant at
Jessops gave me a Neopan 400 and I didn't notice until I got home.

I took the film back to the shop and asked them to relace it with a
400CN, and he said Fuji didn't make a 400CN and said I wanted the Kodak
one! I explained I really wanted the Fuji so he bought me back some
Neopan 400's and 1600's, I ended up asking him to double check that Fuji
didn't make a 400CN and he came back rather red faced saying they did,
they hadn't stocked it yet and would be getting it in a few weeks

The above story brings me onto the question - why would you want to
develop a black and white film in colour chemicals? The Neopan 400CN
looks like it gives really nice results, but I am not sure if I will be
able to develop this at college. I am sure they do have a colour
darkroom (do you need a *dark*room to develop colour film?) as they also
teach the BA(Hons) Photoraphy, but I don't think I have access to the
colour darkroom on the course I am on.

Thanks,

Andrew McCall

 

You bought too many films. Stick with a couple and fine-tune your process.
Only then should you experiment with different films.

The variations in your development/exposure/etc will dominate the
differences in emulsions and this may lead you to false conclusions. I took
the same approach once...my first roll was TMax 400 and it came out like
crap. I foolishly denounced the film. On a whim, I tried it again recently
and the results were beautiful this time around.

 

- Very fine grained high resolution modern technology film.
Requires more care in development than the older style of
films like plus-X and Tri-X. Also despite its very high
resolution it may not look as subjectively sharp as Plus-X.
Ilford Delta 100 and Fuji Acros 100 are in the same class.

- Old technology film. Very easy to work with. High accutance
(subjective sharpness) though not quite as pronounced in that
respect as Plus-x and very wide latitude.

The film I use more than any other. Wide latitude and
reasonably fine grained with normal development. Pushing
the film makes it very grainy, but with mildly extended
development in a speed developer like Microphen, it is
really nice for available light work.

Never tried it.

Not quite the same thing as HP5, but I'm not sure how
to describe the somewhat different look.

Pick one of them, buy at least 10 rolls and learn how to
use that film by trial and error. Try exposing at a lower
exposure index than the manufacturer says and develop slightly
less. D76 (or ID 11) is probably still the best general purpose
film developer. Trying lots of films is fun, but it is really
a good idea to standardize on one film which you get to know
very well. My standard film for 35mm is HP5+, yours could be
any of the above.

Neopan 400 is a lot like Kodak Tri-X, The 400CN is supposed to
be a lot like Ilford XP2, but I've never seen it.

1) C-41 black and white film can be developed by common
minilabs.

2) C-41 film dye clouds look different from grain on regular
film. This is often seen as less graininess for the speed,
but given the different look this is largely a subjective
judgment.

3) C-41 films respond differently to under and over exposure
than regular film. Regular B&W film gets grainier with
overexposure, C-41 film appears less grainy when overexposed.

Peter.

 

Very true.... very true.

 

What Mike said.

In fact one film only. For that matter use the cheapest one.

When you reach the limits of that film and decide on what you want to do
next, you will be able to choose the one that best matches your desires.
So select one, and throw the others into a baggie and into the freezer.

Further, while the film is a key element, the paper you print on and
your darkroom skills/techniques will have a much greater impact on the
final result than the choice of neg. film alone... so eliminate that
variable by sticking to one film only for the time being.

At B&H the Ilfords are a bit cheaper than the K's.

Cheers,
Alan.

 

As you're in the UK you should be able to get your hands on "Photography" magazine. This months
issue carries a test of all the widely available B&W film.
Also, www.7dayshop.com may be a cheaper source for your film in future.

--
Colm


: Hi Folks,
:
: After a little reading, I decided to go out and purchase a whole load of
: black and white film to see how each film reacts to different light, and
: what I like about each film.
:
: The films I bought are:
:
: Kodak TMAX 100 Pro
: Ilford FP4 Plus 125
: Ilford HP5 Plus 400
: Kodak TMAX 400
: Kodak Tri-X 400 Pro
:
: Does anyone have any exerience of these different films? Any tips with them?

 

This was the exact magazine I used to choose the films I bought.

In retrospect, unless I actually used the same shot, and developed using
exactly the same process, I wouldn't really be able to see the difference.

From the magazine, I quite like the look of the Kodak TMAX 100 so I
might stick with that unless I need a faster film, in which case I like
the look of the Kodak Tri-X 400.

Thanks,

Andrew McCall

 

well well, welocme back Alan. Got a tan? lol

 

The C-41 black and whites, are handy if you also do a lot of colour
work, and want to stick to a single set of chemistries, or your using a
1hr lab to produce your negatives. You lose some flexability though....

B&W films that use B&W chemistries tend to have more processing
flexability, in that you can use a different developer for different
subject matter, for example take HP5 for example, it's and old
technology film, use a standard developer for 400 ASA and typical grain,
a high speed developer for 800 or even 1600 ASA, where you want lots
of grain, or have very low light conditions, or a fine grain developer
at 200ASA where you want less grain.

You don't need a dark room, simply a changing bag, a film developing
tank, a couple of graduated cylinders, some dark bottles and a
temperature adjustable water supply. A changing bag looks like a black
T-shirt, with a zipper at the bottom, and elastic arms, you put
everything you want inside the bag, zip it closed, stick your arms in
and do everything inside the bag. Changing bags were originally used to
allow LF photographers to change film in 2 sided film packs, in the
field. I keep one in my 35mm kit, a camera with a jammed or broken film
can simply be put into the bag, opened the film extracted, put into a
light proof container which is then sealed.

A film developing tank and reel, I like the plastic ones with the two
piece adjustable reels. Load the tank dry in the changing bag, use kids
scissors for cutting off the leader, they have less chance of damaging
the bag. Mix up some developer and fixer, and process your films, in
the kitchen or bathroom. I like the kitchen, because I can use the
clock on the Microwave to time the development and fixing.

Although you can mix and match, I like to use Ilford chemistries, for
Ilford films, simply because I expect they would be designed to work
together.

W

 

Good advice.

I'd suggest picking a 400 speed film and using it exclusively for the next
few months.

 

Somewhat more contrast than my favourite ISO 100 B/W film, which is AGFA
APX100. If the AGFA film ever disappears, I might consider using the Kodak.

Never liked the first few rolls of this. In ISO 125, I have a preference for
Kodak Plus-X, but this is so close to the AGFA APX100, that I usually use the
AGFA, and skip ISO 125 films entirely.

Just shot a bunch of this on a job. I had an order in with B&H for some TMX 400
and some TriX (also ISO 400), which unfortunately got delayed. Being short on
supply, I quickly went and bought what the camera store had in stock, which was
this film. I was very surprised how good the results were, and I would gladly
use it again. if you are curious about the results, check out:

Really nice medium to high contrast film, with very nice whites (depending upon
developers used). What I like about this film is that is pushes nicely up to
ISO 3200. Despite my earlier comments about HP5+, I still stock some of this
when I need to push a little under low light.

I thought the Pro was the 320 version . . . anyway, I guess that TriX is the
traditional favourite choice of many, and probably the best known of B/W films.
It really is nice, and pulling down to ISO 200 can give some nice softening to
the images. I will gladly continue to buy and use this film for as long as it
is available.

I found that Ilfotech DDX is a really great developer. Originally, I tried this
with Ilford Delta 3200 and then with Ilford SFX, but I found it works great
with nearly every B/W film I have tried so far. Get a copy of the Massive
Developer Chart, and see how this fits.

Honestly, I never tried Fuji B/W films, so I have no comments about them.

A similar named product is Kodak T400CN, which is a C-41 developed film that
results in B.W final images. While I like that film in medium format, I did not
like the results from 35 mm.

If you have a B/W darkroom, then stick to true B/W film. Also, if all you have
is D-76 developer, then perhaps sticking to films that work well with that
would be a good idea.

If I could recommend three films to try that are not on your list, try out AGFA
APX100, Ilford Pan F 50, and Ilford SFX. If you try SFX, just shoot it
normally, or with an Orange filter. I have several examples of these in the
photography area of my site, including one spot dedicated to SFX images.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>

 

I'd also recommend Ilford Pan F and SFX.

Pan F because of it's gorgeous satin smoothness and SFX because of it's
potential for experimentation.
SFX gives an interesting metallic look of used without filters and if you
can get hold of the SFX filter that Ilford make (it's cheap!) you can get
some nice infrared-like effects.

But that maybe some way down the road if you're starting out.
Definately give Pan F a go though.. It's just lovely


Simon.

 

Pretty good tan, a bit 'red' toned ... I must have Velvia in my skin
pigment...

 

Hello Andrew,

I do not have much experience at B&W photography, but I found the
following webpage yesterday and I think you might find it to be
interesting.
http://www.butzi.net/articles/filmchoice.htm

Cody Houston,

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5


http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks

 

I've tried this film a few times and not been terribly happy with it.
The negatives seemed too thin, and I didn't seem to get the "depth" I
was after. Fine grain, though.

This is my main B&W film, now. I rate it at ISO100 and develop it
normally.

I've used this film a few times, but found it a bit too grainy for my
taste, and slightly "softer" than Tri-X.

Haven't used it many years, and I forget what it does, exactly.
Perhaps I should try it again???

I've used this film recently also, and like it better than HP5Plus.
More "snappy" and better contrast, IMO. Great, classic film. I
understand Kodak just changed the formula, though? By the way, I rate
it at 320 and develop normally.
Another film to try: Ilford Delta 400. I liked this better than TMax,
and the grain is tigher than Tri-X. Nice stuff.

As they say, YMMV.

Karl
http://pages.cthome.net/karlwinkler

 

I think I recall reading that Ilford helped Fuji produce its C-41 b/w film.
In fact, for all practical purposes, it's Ilford film.

 

Exposure of TMX has to be right on... Try some clip tests at ASA 80 and
then 64 and adjust the development time to control the highlights... A good
TMX negative will look to be on the dense side, but will print like an
angel...
denny

 

If so, it's good stuff! I like the Ilford XP2 Super quite a bit. It's
got a nice tonal range, grain comparable or even a little better than
most standard B&W films, and it scans very nicely.

-Karl
http://pages.cthome.net/karlwinkler