B/W films

I did lots of colour projects in my life, I mostly use slide films.

Anyway, I consider myself a beginner of B/W, just tried some films as

the usual Delta, hp, tmax series.

 

I read lots of posts in this great forum these days, since I decided

it's time to do something in B/W.

There's a common sentence I can't really understand :

 

" If you aren't processing your own B/W film use either Kodak T-CN400

or Ilford XP-2 "

WHY ?

 

I know all the things about how better is to process the film by your

own, controlling contrast, grain etc. etc., and the fact that these

films can be processed like colour films, but using different kind of

real B/W films even in automatic labs, they still mantain their own

characteristics (Delta more black and whites and less gray tones,

tmax finer grain etc. etc.).

 

So my main questions, for you gurus are:

 

1. Why shoul I use those CN films in automatic mode ?

 

2. Ok in "automatic mode" i don't have the control on the pure B/W

films but I still got real B/W negatives, so that if one day I'd like

to do an exhibition I have better negatives to use than CN ones ?

isn'it?

 

3. I mostly like to shoot street photography and common things like

sodas can, dust bins, car washer, gas station.... Any suggestion on a

particoular B/W film ?

 

Thanks a lot in advance friends.

 

Matt.

Why?, well starting out, they are fine grain because they are not silver but

made of dyes. You can get them developed anywhere and get good results

and later can make very good B/W prints from. Having not nailed down your

system yet, you could have some (regular B/W negs) over developed that

would be a bugger to print whereas with the CN's you can get good results

right off the bat. Obviously, the best way would be to run your own film but to

get a feel for B/W, this is a decent way to go. Having shot a decent amount of

these myself, in the past, your best bet would be to shoot the Ilford XP2 Super.

It isn't as flat and your prints will pop more than the Kodak version. Kodak did

the "catch up thing" for mostly the wedding shooter who needed B/W that was

printable as proofs with there regular lab so they added the orange mask to

the film so that the lab could render a B/W looking proof with about the same

color channel as color film. It does have a purpose but I prefer the Ilford

myself.

Although I shoot conventional b+w film and process it myself I always carry a roll of XP2 for emergencies if I can't get access to processing facilities.

In the UK at least, getting B/W C-41 processed and printed is a nightmare. Most places insist on charging a massive premium for the job which strikes me as opportunistic, to say the least...

I don't like the look of chromogenic films for my work, but the c-41 process is consistent around the world and from day to day. The films are fairly idiot-proof too, in that you can expose them badly and still get decent prints. If you want the traditional b&w look, and live near a good pro lab, you can get the real b&w film processed properly and consistently also. At some point you may want the control of doing it yourself, because labs don't usually offer a wide range of specific developers, dilutions, etc. As for film recommendations, Tri-x for everything, Tmax 100 for slow, neopan 1600 for fast. Most would agree that Tri-x is the most "classic" looking and the most versatile.

The last time I had a lab do regular b&w film it was ruined with pinholes. Most likely from too strong of stop bath, but I don't know for sure. You also don't get any real control over the development so the film may not be easy to print. Thats why I do my own. If I couldn't I would use C-41 b&w.

 

On #3 - Try Tri-X or HP5+ at EI 250.

Tri-X is nearly 50 years old and been "improved" many times. It's not the grainy high speed film of yore. ISO 400 is no longer a "fast" film and the grain is pretty fine. It's easy to process in a variety of developers from the old standby D-76 to ancient Rodinal (an 1890's formula) to Diafine for higher film speed without excessive contrast.

 

If you just want B&W for publication purposes, and are too lazy to do it properly, you may as well shoot color neg and convert it in Photoshop.

Black and white processing is like piecrust. The store-bought stuff just can't compare to home-made.

 

And public labs are like public toilets. Places to be avoided if possible.

The problem I had with commercial labs is that they typically overdeveloped my film. This raised the contrast which made photographs taken in contrasty lighting that much more difficult to get good prints or scans from.

 

The whole lesson came home early last year after I bought a Rollei TLR. The first roll, TMX, was slightly overdeveloped but a couple of images were usable. The second roll, Agfa APX 100, was taken on a foggy morning and the slight overdevelopment enhanced the images - it remains the best roll I've taken with that camera. The third roll, Delta 100, was shot under bright sunshine and badly overdeveloped, producing disappointing negatives that were almost impossible to work with.

 

Within a month I'd accumulated my own darkroom equipment again to do the job right.

 

However there's no real reason why you can't continue using C41 process monochrome films if they meet your needs. At a recent arts show I saw large prints made from Kodak Portra 400 B&W that were of excellent quality - satisfactory contrast, deep shadow and highlight detail.

Matt:

 

Listen to this fellow Lex. He speaks the truth and he's quite articulate.

Frank, shhh...I'm only a pseudo-intellectual. Don't blow my cover.

As a b/w lover who has served some time in a "Pro" lab I can tell you that the shortcuts these guys use are simply horrifying.

All b/w conventional b/w films were graded into two piles : 125 iso & below, and higher speed films. Into the t.Max RS they went: I think the time difference was about 4 minutes..

Moral : If you can't, or won't, develop your own, use the C-41 emulsions.

// Matt says:

 

1. Why shoul I use those CN films in automatic mode ?

 

2. Ok in "automatic mode" i don't have the control on the pure B/W films but I still got real B/W negatives, so that if one day I'd like to do an exhibition I have better negatives to use than CN ones ? isn'it?

 

/////

 

If by "automatic mode" you mean automatic exposure, I think using CN films in that case is a good idea. If you use AE with traditional B&W films you're often going to be disappointed with the results. Many, perhaps most, of your photos will look washed-out, or, rather, they will be lacking a full tonal scale.

 

If you're going to reap the rewards of "real" B&W film, then you have to learn how to expose it right. And, once you start down that road, you'll eventually see that you need to take complete control of the process to get consistent, high quality results.

 

Developing becomes part of the creative process; part of visualizing a particular shoot, and knowing in advance how elements of that scene will be rendered on film. You start by simply getting control over the process, so that you can repeatably get the same results. Then, you learn how to modify your technique to get the results you want, even when the conditions aren't ideal, or the results that you want are unconventional.

 

Your not just doing something by hand, instead of sending it off to the lab. You're making B&W development part of your own creative toolbox. It's confusing at first, because you'll wrestle with technical issues, but eventually you internalize the process, and it becomes part of your own creative mind.

 

Also, once you've got your act together, you can develop a couple rolls of film very quickly. It's not a hassle, IMO, it's a convenience. Why should I fart around with labs, when I can have it all right now? No waiting. Better results. More creative opportunities.

 

I feel like blabbing now, so here's a little story: When I was just a wee lad, in junior high school, I took a photography course. We loaded up our Pentax Spotmatics, and Canon FTb's, and Nikkormats (school equipment!), and went marching about taking pictures---using, of course, the centerweighted meters built into the cameras.

 

The result of all this was that, in the beginning, most of my photos, from a distance, were difficult to differentiate from a gray card. For us, exposing and developing film was a by-wrote process that we didn't really understand. We thought all the real work happened in the Darkroom; and for us, it did. We got pretty good at printing techniques: burning and dodging our asses off trying to get prints that looked like ones that we admired.

 

It wasn't until quite a few years later, when I took another course in college, that I learned how to do a film test, how to evaluate a scene with a light meter, how I could get good tonal range in a photo, even when the conditions weren't ideal. I learned that printing became a whole hell of lot easier when I understood how to make a good negative.

 

The B&W process is actually quite simple, and is a beautiful thing on it's own merits. Just from the fact that you're posting here, it's obvious that you're curious. You should learn about the process itself; it's not just a matter of loading your camera with a particular film, and getting particular result. Silver/gelatine is a chemical process, with inherent limitations, and if you understand the process you can make it do whatever you want within those limits.

 

Buy Ansel's "The Negative." If that doesn't make you want to load up your stainless tanks, and fill 'em full of HC-110, then I'm sure you'll be quite pleased with the results you get from CN film.

"If by "automatic mode" you mean automatic exposure, I think using CN films in that case is a good idea. If you use AE with traditional B&W films you're often going to be disappointed with the results. Many, perhaps most, of your photos will look washed-out, or, rather, they will be lacking a full tonal scale."

 

First of all, I think Matt meant automatic lab processing by "automatic mode", not automatic exposure. And IMHO it is a bit exaggerating to say that using AE will result the lack of full tonal scale. AE _can_ result a perfect exposure, but there is allways a random factor involved and it is harder to control the exposure precisely than with spotmeter (some cameras of course have a spotmeter built in). But certainly you will be able to get very good shots using AE (well, at least on modern cameras) if you test it and learn to use it properly. And besides: using CN makes no difference in exposure requirements. Every film (traditional B&W, C-41 or whatever) needs correct exposure to yield best results.

 

"The B&W process is actually quite simple, and is a beautiful thing on it's own merits."

 

I absolutely agree! Doing the whole process yourself is very rewarding and the ability to control every step gives you all the tools it takes to transfer that scene to a beautilful, totally satisfying print.

 

But, you can definitely use normal B&W films, if you find a lab that is capable of processing it decently. With CN any lab can develop it. Evetually you can by all the equipment needed to process the film yourself. (you can do an exhibition from CN negatives too, BTW, they are not at all bad)

Auto-exposure is darned convenient and perfectly suitable, if not superior, for some shooting situations. Match the use of AE with the right film and most folks wouldn't know you didn't meter everything the hard way.

 

Let's assume that a good AE system, something like a matrix mode smart enough to account for tricky backlighting, etc., will be off by no more than a full stop plus or minus from the ideal exposure.

 

With a film like T-Max 100 that's gonna be pretty disastrous. But with Tri-X, especially at EI 1200-1600 in Diafine, Microphen or your speed soup of preference, such metering error is well within the bounds of acceptable exposure.

 

So, Matt, if you enjoy the convenience of auto-exposure for your style of shooting, just choose a compatible film and processing method and your results will be fine.

"With a film like T-Max 100 that's gonna be pretty disastrous."

 

What do you mean by that? Tmax 100 has very long straight line portion which basically means that one can overexpose it greatly without blowing out highlights. I'd guess underexposing Tri-x at 1600 will result much less usable negs.

First let me say I'm still learning the fine art of B&W photography. I have been

shooting B&W for about 5 months now. I've shot both conventional, Kodak Select and

T400CN. Mostly for school, some stuff for home use.

 

Here's a little advice from someone 5 months from where you are now.

 

First, be prepared to take lots of BAD pictures. Things that look great through the

view finder don't always look so good in B&W. Pictures of clouds for example. Unless

you have a colored filter (I like 25a) they won't come out very clearly on film. My

solution to this was to buy cheap film (Arista Pro 125, bulk loaded) and shoot lots of

it to see what worked and what didn't.

 

Second, you will mess up a few rolls. Out of the 20 or so I've done myself I've messed

up about 1/2. Mostly because of limited time. Even if you mess up the roll, you can

normally correct it in the darkroom, although quality does suffer a bit. Moral: Make

sure you take your time. Five minutes taken to understanding developing saves thirty

minutes in the darkroom.

 

As for CN films, I like T400CN, it prints nicely on B&W paper (I use Ilford MGIV RC and

#4 filter) and has a nice sepia tone when printed on color paper. Kodak Select looks

like a truer B&W film when printed on color paper, however it has a ugly (in my

opinion) red tint to it.

 

As for the questions, I really can't answer, I try to shoot all my B&W film on manual

and I've only shot a handful of types of film. Mostly cheap-o film, Aka. $1.50 and let

the school foot the bill for the developing.

 

I have attached a little picture with sections of diffrent films taken from 800 dpi scans

of the negitives.

<I>"Second, you will mess up a few rolls. Out of the 20 or so I've done myself I've messed up about 1/2. Mostly because of limited time"</I> -- Steven

<P>

1/2! Hopefully you don't mean you've completed wrecked them! I would get someone else to do it for me if I stuffed 1/2 of them! You need to slow down and pay attention to what you're doing. If you don't have the time to do it right, don't do it until you do.

<P>

Out of 400+ films, I can name 4 that I've stuffed. One I used 300ml of developer when I should have used 500ml to suit the MF film rather than the 35mm amount. Another I managed to load so it jumped the tracks in the reel and got a couple of undeveloped areas where the film was touching (pissed at that one cause it wrecked a couple of good shots). One was really thin after I used dodgy developer (not that I knew until afterwards!). I managed to reticulate one film when the wash temp deviated from normal (surprising another roll of different film in the same tank didn't reticulate) That, and a couple of cresent marks from kinking 120 roll film is about it!