Best B&W films for sharp tack street photography

<p>Hello<br>

I'll be buying a rangefinder 35mm film camera next week and a good lens that can make really sharp photos. I'm actually focused in taking street photography,but I like the look of some really well focused photos that show really good detail and contrast. I understand that this, apart for a steady hand, the right combination of shutter speed and aperture, well focusing and a good lens, the film you chose play also a part there.<br>

I will like to hear some recommendation on to which brand,type and ASA rating will help me to achieve that.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your replies</p>

<p>RA</p>

<p>hello robert, if you are from the sunnier climes than slow speed film would be fine. i personally like the c41 processed ilford xp2 iso 400. it scans really well unlike some of the other black and white films. i have tried tmax 100 and while the resolution was really good, i struggled with this slow film on cloudy days down the bay.</p>

<p>Well, Tri-X is classic.</p>

<p>400 TMAX is sharper, higher resolving, and gives better tonality. It's a little less forgiving in exposure error than Tri-X, however. Try developing it Xtol 1:1.</p>

<p>Tri-X or Ilford HP5+ are both good, all-around choices. Depending upon exposure and development the grain will be reasonable. Plus-X and Ilford FP4+ are good if you have plenty of light. I'm guessing that you will want medium to small apertures and fast shutter speeds so I wouldn't recommend going any slower than ISO 100. I use HC110 dilution B for most of my black & white. For even finer grain, but a little trickier to master is Fuji's Acros 100. I rate mine at E.I. 80 for development in HC110.</p>

<p>Microfilms will get you resolution that bests all but the highest quality NASA type lenses. Unfortunately they're expensive and very very slow (ASA 6-20.) I think TMAX 100 is a good compromize, though.</p>

<p>Another vote for the new Tmax 400. From my limted experience with it in 35mm it just might be the best all around film ever. Very fine grain and very sharp. I'm abandoning the Plus-x 125 Ive been using for a few years in favor of the Tmax. Less grain and faster.</p>

<p>Thank you all for all your replies.I will try every one of the mentioned ones and will let you know of my results.<br>

Thanks again,you're very kind</p>

<p>RA</p>

<p>I used 400 T-max. I found some FujiFilm B&W slide film, I plan to give a whirl in the next couple of weeks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For street photography, you can pretty much rule out slow films. These tend to be higher in contrast, and have less exposure latitude than their faster counterparts. On days when there is plenty of light, and you have some control over the contrast of the scene, films with speeds of 100 to 125 can be used to good effect. For the best balance though, I'd recommend a fast film with a speed of around 400. They are usually lower in contrast, and able to capture details over a wider scene brightness range than slower films. Focusing needs to be done quickly, sometimes sacrificing accuracy for speed. A faster film will allow you to use a smaller aperture to compensate for small focusing errors while still maintaining a fast enough shutter speed consistent with avoiding camera shake.</p>

<p>Which film? That's hard to say because all the 400 speed B&W films from the major players in the business are very good for this kind of work. It really comes down to what floats your boat. Tri-X, Neopan 400, and HP5+ are the tops because of their wide exposure latitude. The current version of TMax 400 is just plain fantastic, and may be even better than the previously mentioned 3. It is very sharp, has a very smooth tonality, and is exceptionally fine grained for a film of this speed. Delta 400 is another excellent film, giving up little or nothing to TMax 400. Any of these will work, and work well for your intended purpose.</p>

<p>fuji neopan 400</p>

<p>Robert, is there a particular photographer in the street or documentary genre whose work you admire, or a specific photo or series of photos you feel inspired by and would like to emulate? We can offer more specific suggestions for film, exposure, development and printing techniques if we have a better idea of the type of look or effect you enjoy in the work of other photographers.</p>

<p>Lex, I like the look of portraits of Nige Parry, even if he is not in the genre of street or documentary photography. Just an example.</p>

<p>Robert, looking at Nigel Parry's pictures I find they are mostly strongly composed and I guess most of them have been planned for a studio environment, where you shoot the quantity of pictures you need to make a selection of the best ones. I mean, they probably look spontaneous but rather because of a good selection afterwards and not because the photographer took just that "one" marvelous shot.<br>

Street photography works completely the opposite way. You don't have the time or the circumstances that allow you to shoot until you get the right one. You have to use a high degree of very rapid observation, have your subject(s) framed and shot in a fraction of a second with the composition of your picture, the right moment all included. Good examples of street photography you probably will find among the Magnum photographers.<br>

Good luck<br>

Willy</p>

<p>Thank you Will. Yes, I understand that Nigel Parry's portraits are well planned studio portraits, I was just making reference of the look ,regarding contrast and sharpness of pictures. You are right, this is almost impossible to achieve in street photography, but maybe with a yellow-green filter(for added contrast) and good luck on focusing right the street photography I'm talking about will be possible achieved with years of expertise, using the right film.<br>

RA</p>

<p>Using a filter will diminish the sensitivity of the film. And mostly you need all the speed you can get. Sharpness and contrast can be obtained through the lens and your way of developing. For starting I would suggest a very simple recipe. Put a 35mm lens on your rf set your distance on something between 2.5/3.5m and use depending on the light the smallest aperture possible, shutterspeed 125 ... 500th. Try to frame just by observing (in advance) your depth of field and forget the rangefinder. It's useful for short distances but takes time for average distances. A 35mm gives you enough dof compared to a 50 or 85mm (a 28 or 21mm will probably put your subject too far away). Just start walking and shooting through an area you find interesting. It's important to develop a way of shooting fast and good with a ready to shoot camera.</p>

<p>Thank you Will. I had no idea that a filter will do that.I'll take your advise into account.LOL,used to depend on AE on SLR cameras, I' was never aware about filters and its contra productive effects.I need to educate myself a bit more.A good book will help.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>RA</p>

<p>Will and Lex, this is an example of what I'm after: http://www.photosbynitsa.com/catalog/BWpeople/pages/image/imagepage73.html .This photo is by Nitsa.</p>

<p>RA</p>

<p>Looking at that example, I'm betting she (nitsa) uses a DSLR.</p>

<p>Robert, from the descriptions you've provided it sounds like you would prefer the results from well exposed film in the ISO 100-400 range with standard development to ensure a full tonal range and minimal grain. So I'm betting we can dispense with the usual suggestions to use faster film, push processing, etc.</p>

<p>It's possible to get very good results using slower films for street and documentary photography. Many photographers did so for decades. If your hands are steady, your technique is good (to minimize camera shake induced motion blur) and you're shooting mostly in daylight, an ISO 100 film is perfectly fine for this type of photography. Up until a few years ago when my hands became less steady I was still using films like Pan F+ (ISO 50) and TMX (ISO 100) for street photography. With a TLR I can still manage slower films since the ergonomics of a TLR work well with handheld use.</p>

<p>But let's keep it simple. Go with Tri-X or HP5+. Good ol' ID-11, D-76 at 1+1 dilution, or HC-110 at Dilution H. Start out exposing the film at around EI 200-320 to ensure you'll avoid underexposure. And check the manufacturer's suggestions for development to be sure to avoid overdevelopment.</p>

<p>This is plain vanilla stuff, but has worked for many photographers over the years. And despite using similar materials and techniques, they each achieved a unique, personal style. You'll get very good negatives that will print well and can even be scanned if preferred. After that, it's all about the light, composition and printing.</p>

<p>http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&l1=0&pid=2K7O3R14T1LX&nm=Henri%20Cartier%20-%20Bresson<br>

Henri Cartier-Bresson, THE example of rf film street photography</p>

<p>I agree Mark. Even the pixel dimensions are a digital giveaway......they are a 4/3 aspect ratio. Not a bad B&W conversion.....but it doesn't look like film to me. I prefer the gritty look of higher speed films. I loved Fortepan 400 before it vanished.</p>

<p>Now, I stick mainly with Ilford HP5, at 800iso or higher, or Neopan 1600.</p>

<p>For street, as other have remarked, you will need 400, just to make sure. I have recently discovered the virtues of the new TMX 400. I didn't care much for the old one, but the new one is really good. It gives sharp images, with great tonalities and not much grain (for a 400 film.) I still prefer Tri-X, but it is a bit grainier. Give the new TMX 400 a try.</p>

<p>Well, H.C.-B. is certainly neither known for tack sharp photos (at exhibition size) nor 'good contrast'. He actually was an outspoken softie in these areas.<br>

I still cannot think of TMX (like in: K's 100ASA 'modern' film...) as a sharp film. Any other 100 ASA and lower film is sharper in diluted ID-11/Xtol.<br>

TMY-2 is now more forgiving than TMY (the one right before -2). Tri-X(latest), on the other hand, has become a bit more 'nervous' than the pre-2005(?) version. Might just be me, though. TMY-2 has certainly more latitude than any other 'modern' or any kind of slower film and maybe already as much as Tri-X. (To be tested.)<br>

...<br>

If you want your street shots to be tack sharp, 1/250th (or faster) is mandatory; too much subject motion blur too often otherwise. Impeccable camera holding and shutter release technique (in the heat of the moment!) comes a close second. Anything else like RF or not, quality zoom or fixed focal lens, film, etc. is pretty unimportant. (Sorry for the digression.)<br>

My sunny weather combo for _handheld_ super-sharp looking negs (_beyond_ 24x30.5cm) is Delta100 in 1+1 Xtol. For not-so-sunny weather either Neopan400 or TMY-2 gets a go. Beyond that, for truly British conditions ;-) , it's Neopan1600.<br>

Oh, I like Tri-X too – but for reasons other than sharpness.<br>

Good luck<br>

Pete</p>

<p> </p>

<p>One consideration - if you really get into street photography, you could easily burn through film. So, cost should probably be one consideration. To that end, I would recommened Arista Premium 400 (develop like Tri-X) or Legacy Pro 400 (develop like Neopan 400).</p>

<p>You can get either or both at <a href="http://www.freestylephoto.biz/">http://www.freestylephoto.biz/</a></p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Keith</p>