Current state of BW films

After a few decades of color, first slides and prints more recently, I am trying

to get back into black and white.

 

What is the state of the art in BW film? I ask here since among the rangefinder

users there seem to be many BW specialists, more than in any other forum.

 

What do I mean by best BW film? Smooth gradation of tone, sharpness, true black

and white (0-100% saturation), moderate exposure latitude, non-perceivable grain

(TRi X is out). Just what i would call a stunning film, reminiscent of the Kodak

UC 400 on Fuji Archive paper of today (in color), or the old Koda... 25 ISO

slide film of years ago.

 

Choices are the Neopans of Fuji (100 or 400?), the deltas and FP4/HP4 of Ilford

(which i loved in the 60s), or the chromagenic films such as Ilford XP2 or Kodak

400CN.

 

Monitors, if this does not fit into the Leica (= rangefinder) forum, please move

as you feel best. Thanks, Frank

"(TRi X is out)"

 

But I like Tri-X! HP-5, too.

 

Tri-X been very, very good to me . . .

Grain free- long tonal range. Best I found is Delta 100 exposed at 50, developed in my made fron scratch D76 one shot without dilution.

 

5.25 min at 68 agitation 10 sec/60 one time on the minute. Lower the film into the tank already filled with developer if you use a stainless steel tank. go to 5.75 min for a diffusion enlarger.

 

EI 100 is 6.5 min and you get more grain.

 

Store bought D76 or ID11 will be the same times.

 

T- max 100 is also good, but I never could find a time that did not blow out bright whites in sun with a condenser enlarger. Do not use HC110 with this film. It works, but not well compared to D76.

 

Tri x at EI 200, HC110 diluted 1:45 from stock, developed 4.5 is very nice. Do not knock this `til you try it.

 

If you want more sharpness, dilute the D76 1:1 or 1:3. You will gain sharpness and loose fine grain. No developer does it all.

 

Sharp, low grain, high film speed. Pick one or best two.

Consider Efke-25.

First, be concerned about where you can get it processed. Second, I'd try to get your hands on some Agfa Scala before it disappears along with places that process it. Gorgeous REVERSAL B&W.

 

I am also running some of the new Rollei-branded Maco films (B&W 25 and FAST) and they are allegedly available in 35, but I have not seen it offered here in the US in other than 120. http://www.silverprint.co.uk/bwf11.html

 

Very nice gradation. You can find them on the web and ask to purchase it directly from Rollei if you can't find it at B&H in NYC or other big retailer.

 

Cheers and welcome back,

Ray Hull

I'll second the Delta 100, which may be the sharpest bw film on the market at this point. I've heard good things about Fuji's Acros 100, though I haven't used Fuji bw other than their Neopan 1600.

I second what Ray Hull said. The Rollei are (most of them) rebranded Agfa emulsions.

 

Quite a variety there.

forget the tri-x anymore IMHO. The best results I've seen is HP-4 or HP-5. side-by-side you can discern the tri-x from the ilford.

 

Have a nice day - Paul

Try Kodak BW400CN. Get it developed at any one hour minilab - C41 process. Negatives are beautifully smooth, with very little grain, excellent tonality. It scans exceptionally well.

 

I am not a Kodak fan because of their product withdrawals and lack of support for Kodachrome - all the other films I use now come in green boxes - but BW400CN is truly an excellent emulsion, one that I use for >90% of my B&W work.

I don't know if you can buy it where you live but Paterson FX-50 gives extremely grain-free results even when pushed. The 'apparent' sharpness may not be to everyone's tastes but I recommend trying it to see what you think . . . sorry I can't show this any bigger (and it's had unsharp mask) this is tri-x at the speed it says on the box.<div></div>

while this is Neopan (at) 1600.<div></div>

As one or two posters above have hinted at, you are not looking for a specific film so

much as a film and developer combination. Apparent sharpness, resolution, and

grdation of tone are characteristics which are influenced as much by developer as by

the film- it's not like color, where it's all one process. For instance, one of the

sharpest and highest resolution combos I have ever seen is Tri-X (go figure) exposed

at 200 and processed in Edwal FX-7 mixed with a 10% solution of hydrogen peroxide.

Paterson's FX 50 is indeed also a fine grained developer, as is X-Tol (which is a

similar formula). Accufine is quite sharp, too, as is HC-110 at higher dilutions.<p>

However, remember that the finer the grain, the less sharpness you'll see, as fine

grain tends to soften edges and blur fine details.

Tonal gradation is another matter, and one of the best I have ever seen is Rodinal,

although I'd say that one is out for you, since it's no longer commercially available

and more to the point is known to give grainy (but sharp!) results, along with a very

long, smooth

tonality.<p>The chromogenic films like Ilford XP2 and Kodak TCN that people have

suggested might be a good idea, especially if you don't want to print them yourself in

a darkroom. They yield very fine grain, and scan well. If you want traditional process

film, go for the slowest speed you can find, the modern formulations like Delta or

Tmax films, and read up about the deveolpers out there.

You never did say how big you planned on printing or what the viewing distance would be. They both affect whether or not the grain is "non-perceivable". If grain is really a major consideration you might consider going medium format.

To Ronald Moravec --

 

Ronald, could you share your recipe for your own D76 soup, if possible, or a link to the place where it's described. I have old Russian photography books with recepies for developers, but none gives D76 (probaly, for patent infringement reasons). Many thanx in advance!

one film i found just wonderful, and you don't hear of people using it much, is FP-4; @80, in id-11 1:1 for people and normal contrast.

 

for t-grain films, without a doubt, delta 100 was my favorite and tmax 400 the worst.

Fp4 makes for a nice general film with moderate contrast. Fuji Acros 100 is extremely sharp

and has the finest grain of any 100 speed film. It has really nice tonality too, particularly

when developed in highly diluted rodinal (1:100). I like Delta 100, but I switched to Acros

when I was living in Japan and I have not gone back. Efke 25 is very nice too, but I find it is

very difficult to shoot it without blowing the highlights or blocking up the shadows. Perhaps

that is just me...

Has anybody tried the Chinese manufactured Lucky films? They make both 100 and 400 speed black and white film.

Frank, if you want something less grainy, I'd agree with the above poster that Acros will probably give you the best overall success rate.<p>However to my eye, nothing looks as beautiful as TMX when you really nail the exposure, it has a little magic to it.<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3895398-lg.jpg"><p>TMX in Rodinal

Frank, if you're interested in the Rollei Pan 25 you can get it at Freestyle Photo in LA. I've had very good luck with the Efke 25 and Adox 50 from J&C Photo. Delta 100 has also been good to me. I am just finishing my last roll of TriX because it doesn't scan worth a crap on my Minolta 5400. The others scan great. Hope this helps.

You don't mention a speed preference. For 100 speed films, Eric mentioned FP4, which I've only used a few times, but it's an awfully nice film. Fuji 100 Acros is also really excellent; nice tones, no grain.<br><br>

HP5+ is a nice film particularly for portraits, but it's not grainless. I'm not sure that there's a 400 ISO film with non-perceivable grain, but TMY and Delta 400 come pretty close. TMY gets a lot of flack for being a hard film to use, but I've not found it to be so tricky. If underexposed skin tones go a little wonky and the greens of foliage can be a bit strange, but other than that it's a fine film. In my experience no B&W film has any exposure latitude; you either get the right exposure for the look you are pursuing or you get substandard results.<br><br>

<center>

<img src="http://www.1point4photography.com/images/02520015.jpg"><br>fuji acros<br>

<img src="http://www.1point4photography.com/images/02590024.jpg"><br>TMY<br>

<img src="http://www.1point4photography.com/images/02680036.jpg"><br>HP5+<br>

<img src="http://www.1point4photography.com/images/02830022.jpg"><br>Delta 400<br></center>

You did not list this as a candidate but I agree with Beau. Exposed and developed properly, TMX 100 has a luminous quality that sings.<BR>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2513137-lg.jpg"></center><BR>

So, further to Frank's question, can anyone tell me what the attribute differences are between Ilford's Delta (100 and 400) films and the other HP4/5 etc.?

 

I agree with the posts that say Acros 100 is smooth and fine grained, so which Ilford version corresponds to such characteristics?

 

And Frank, I think this is the best place for such discussion - I've posted film questions in the film forum before only to have few direct responses and many "sideline" discussions.

"You did not list this as a candidate but I agree with Beau. Exposed and developed properly, TMX 100 has a luminous quality that sings."

 

it does indeed. and I always wondered why TMX400 was so tricky to nail? I rested on hc110 with 1:63 straight out of the bottle as the best for cold light printing. but...too much of a bother really.

You might be interested in this thread over thin the B&W forum: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Heh4

 

Regarding the differences between Delta 400 and HP5+, they are similar to the differences between TriX and TMY, except less so; Delta 400 and HP5 are more alike than TriX and TMY are. Delta 400 seems to have less contrast than HP5, and it's certainly less grain than HP5.

Many thanks Matt - now we are cooking! All makes sense now.