Want to know contrast comparison of some B&W films

I would like to know from experienced users of Tmax 100, Tmax 400,

Acros, T400CN and XP2-Super what they say on comparing the contrast

attributes of these films.

I don't intend to do my own developing and printing and I am using

them for general shooting.

My own experience is that T400CN is more contrasty than XP2-Super.

Tmax 400 is ok. I haven't used Acros and Tmax 100 yet. If I am not

mistaken, T400CN is replaced by Portra 400BW, or renamed, who knows.

What is the recommendation for highest contrast using normal

development? The mentioned films are the ones I can obtain in my area

so no point recommending something else.

You can make a contrast comparison of chromognic films (XP2 and T400CN) because C-41 process is a standarized dev.

with classic B&W you can't compare contrast.

Tmax 400 is Ok with Xtol 6 1/2 mn, contrast is 0.58 (kodak datasheet)

but the same Tmax 400 with the same Xtol for 5mn is soft

and the same Tmax 400 with the same Xtol for 10mn is hard

Classic B&W film had no "intrinsic contrast"

Portra 400 BW is a BW portrait film (like other PORTRA films in color)

T400CN is a multi-purpose chromogenic B&W film.

The contrast of the T400CN is "classic" but the Portra400 BW is soft.

you have datasheet on kodak.com

If you are neither going to develope or print them in a darkroom I'd forget about the traditional films.

Use XP2 rated anywhere from 200 -320 asa. It is a very easy film to scan.

Just to clarify a little of what pascal said, which is entirely correct. With traditional B&W films there is no standard process, there dozens and dozens of developers that can be used, each imparting it's own charateristics with that of the film, differant developing procedures, temperatures agitation. When people talk about normal development (or N development), that's ussually a referance to the zone system N, which is a 5 stop contrast range from black with detail to white with detail. That time changes for every film, and for every processing style. This makes it hard to do lab processed traditional B&W film because you don't really know what they're going to use for chemistry or times. This is the reason so often people give advice to people who won't be processing their own film to use the chromgenic B&W films. C-41 chemistry is standard, that is a correctly callibrated, replenished, etc C-41 line at one lab should produce the same result at a differant lab. With traditional, you need to find a lab that does a good job, and taylor your shooting style to their processing style, and pray they don't change things. Hope that helps

Peter

As mentioned (I think) the contrast of regular B&W negatives depend on how long they are developed (even if some films have more �inherent� contrast than others). Therefore, if these films are developed by a lab, there is no way to make a objective judgment among them regarding contrast.

C-41 films like T400CN and XP2-Super are developed with a standard process and you should be able to compare the contrast of the negatives. But if you are looking at prints processed by a lab (instead of the negatives), all bets are off because the printing process may favor certain brands of films due to better machine calibration.

If you want to influence the contrast of a traditional b/w film, you will have to push or pull it. Pushing means, that you set your light meter for a higher Exposure Index than the nominal value (the one mentioned on the box). If the box says ISO100 you can set your light meter (or your camera) for ISO200 or maybe even more. Then you tell the lab to develop your film for this ISO setting. This way you will get more contrast.

Pulling is the oposite: you set your camera for a lower Exposure Index. For a ISO100 film you can set it for 50 or even lower. Again you tell the lab to develop for this ISO setting. This way you get less contrast.

It takes a bit of testing, and staying with the same lab. And just hope they do not suddenly change their procedures after you have tested everything!

As for the chromogenic films: I use them occasionally. I rate them at about half the nominal speed, and have them developed normally. This way I get much better printable negatives. (I still do the printing myself). I have never tried pushprocessing one of these films. Does anyone here have experience with this?

You can also do this with traditional b/w films, it may work, depending on the procedures of your lab.

Arjen, contrast is influenced more by development than by exposure, given the same lighting conditions.

Pushing or the more confusing topic of "pulling" film are entirely different subjects, best reserved for special needs and not for the purpose of influencing contrast.

Best to keep the two issues separate for the sake of clarity.