Dark blacks and rich, creamy whites... how?

[simon_hughes1]

I'm just getting back into film (all digital since 2000) and after

many, many years, back into B&W. I'm shooting a friend's wedding

soon using my M7 and M6 with available light only and I'm

considering using Fuji Neopan 1600. I'd like to get really nice dark

blacks and rich creamy whites but one caveat is that I don't have a

darkroom and thus cannot do my own proessing (even if I remembered

how!).

 

I will be using a reputable lab (Overlake Photo in Seattle), but I'd

appreciate any suggestions you might have to achieve the contrast

I'm looking for. Should I rate the film at 1600 or vary by 1/3, 1/2

or 2/3 stop, and in which direction? Any ideas and suggestions would

be great.

 

Ciao,

 

Simon

[jimvanson]

Simone -- Deep blacks? Creamy whites? Neopan 1600???? I've never seen that (although I'm not a big user of that film).<P>Regardless -- you said that you're not doing your own processing. Does that mean you'll get a shop to do the printing or will you scan & print? Either way you're going to have to establish a personal film EI with the shop you deal with if you are attempting to optimize your negs.<P>I suggest you go out and shoot a couple of test rolls -- why 2 we'll get to that.<P>Pick a scene. Shoot it at -.5, indicated, +.5, +1, +1.5 -- <b>record what your doing</b>!<P>Find another scene one with different contrast (if the first was sunlit the second will be open shade, third inside available light the forth will be...) -- shoot it the same way -.5, indicated, +.5, +1, +1.5 -- <b>record what your doing</b>!<P>Shoot both rolls this way. If you have two cameras you could shoot the same scene with both camera.<P>Take in a roll, get it processed. Tell them you shot it at 1600. If your getting prints made tell them that you DO NOT want any corrections made to the prints.<p>When you pick up the roll a couple days later drop off the second roll. Tell them 1600, no corrections to the prints if your having them done.<P>Check out the <B>NEGS</b> from the first roll. Decide which exposure is best (my guess is -1 although it really depends on the lab and their chemistry).<P>Check out the Negs from the second roll processed a couple days later. Do the best exposures from the first roll match that of the second? Thats important cause if the lab isn't consistent, if their neg processing is all over the map; you will be screwed -- especially with a film like Neopan 1600!<P>And if you don't want to go through all this fuss? Then process the negs yourself at home and get a shop to print them or say the hell with it and use a chromogenic like XP2 Super shot at 320. Send that through a one hour machine -- bliss!

[omar_fernandez]

Simon,

 

Your project to photograph your friends wedding with a separate photo lab is a collaborative effort and you should discuss with the lab your goals and what film and EI?s they recommend to meet your goals. They should be able make recommendations based on their experience and devlopers used.

 

Consider shooting a trial roll of film to see if this lab can meet your expectations. Ask for a contact sheet and then for a print to see if they are a capable lab.

 

I caution you that finding a lab that can meet your requirement for complete tonal range can be difficult. Most labs concentrate on color work and are adequate for that task. For many labs B&W work is sloppily done, with little regard for details needed for quality B&W work.

 

I shot a friend wedding once. It was hard work and I did not enjoy the wedding.

 

Good luck.

[dzeanah]

If you don't want to print the images yourself but you still want good looking black and white, try XP2. It'll do best rated somewhere around 200-400 ASA, but a competent wedding lab can get good, inexpensive, contrasty prints with "creamy" skin tones out of it.

 

Great if you can make it work.

 

Neopan 1600 isn't bad, but I've recently discovered Tri-X @ 1250 in Diafine (and likely accufine as well) performs surpsisingly well, and is particularly good in contrasty situations as Diafine is a compensating developer. This of course means you'll be developing your own film and scanning/printing/paying a black and white printner to hand-print all the images. This ain't cheap.

[dzeanah]

Scan from XP2:

 

(haven't figured out how to adjust skin tones in photoshop yet -- anything more than levels confuses me)

[lex_jenkins]

The images you're envisioning require as much skill in printing as in exposure and film processing. Decades ago we could rely on just about any lab to produce satisfactory b&w prints at their normal fees. But those days are gone.

 

Nowadays we're lucky to get b&w proofs on RC paper that are in focus, let alone printed with any consideration toward contrast. That's why I started doing my own b&w work again.

 

The only local pro lab I trust charges $9.40 for the first 5x7 and $4.40 for each additional print; $35.00 for the first 16x20 and $16.50 for each additional print. These prices are for their custom prints, dodged, burned and cropped to customer specs, spotting included. (Their prices for machine prints are considerably less, $0.45 for 4x6 and $1.25 for 5x7 borderless.)

 

If I was shooting for a wedding I'd strongly consider doing what I do when shooting color film for weddings - let the lab do it. That means shooting only a C-41 process monochrome film such as Ilford XP2 Super or Kodak's Portra B&W-whatever.

 

Why? Because even a lab that can't turn out a single decent traditional b&w proof print can probably do a good job with prints from C-41 process monochrome film. If they can churn out decent color proofs, they can do the same from XP2 Super (or the equivalent from Kodak or Fuji).

 

However I wouldn't underexpose these films by more than one stop. That means 800, tops.

 

If you plan to go with a conventional ultra-fast b&w film like Neopan 1600, T-Max 3200 or Delta 3200, plan to pay considerably more for the appropriate processing and printing. All three films, when shot at their nominal speeds, will probably need a one-stop push to produce negatives that satisfy most folks. When I shoot Delta 3200 I always develop 25%-50% longer than the published data suggests for a given exposure. For example, if I shoot it at 1600 I'll develop it as for 3200.

 

And I'd want the lab to use an appropriate speed enhancing developer, which means no D-76/ID-11. I'd prefer Microphen but I'd settle for Xtol or T-Max. DDX and Acufine would be good alternatives.

 

Whatever you choose, run a test roll by the lab before the wedding so you'll know what to expect and whether you'll need to consider a different lab.

[dzeanah]

Tri-X 1250 ASA scan:

[jeff_drew4]

"I'd like to get really nice dark blacks and rich creamy whites" >>

This is as much the printer's forte as the film. The paper chosen for the image is important to achieve the contrast you seek. I don't shoot Neopan and have no comments, but you may want to add a light green filter to your lens to balance the skin tones for B&W. If you decide to shoot color and print in B&W, try Kodak Portra 400NC or Portra 800. Portra 800 can be boosted a stop. In general, Portra has great skin tones, is easily printed in Kodak channels. The C41 Portra B&W version may be a better choice for weddings as well. Check out Kodak's site for tons of info.

[david_beal___richmond_hts.]

I do shoot weddings and I also shoot a variety of b/w. I sometimes carry a body loaded with Ilford Delta 3200 for low light candids. HOWEVER, in general, silver negative film is NOT the way to go. You need a chromogenic b/w film. I use Ilford XP2 Super, shot at 320. It never fails to make blacks black and whites white (a big deal, since at most wedding those are the primary colors). Kodak Portra b/w also works, but I like Ilford because if I want to, I can print the negs as I wish. You have to use split filter techniques to print Portra b/w on b/w paper, and it's more trouble than it's worth. Make sure that the pro lab you use does not give you any grief about processing your particular film (some Kodak labs claim they cannot process Ilford XP2 super because it fouls their processor -- Ilford says this is not true, but better to know ahead of time). If you get back proofs that are too green (a common problem), tell them they need to tweak the magenta channel.

 

And whatever you do, start TODAY and shoot several rolls of test film.

 

Good luck

[rolfe_tessem]

FWIW, as much as I hold Neopan 1600 in high regard, I think it is at best a 1000 speed film. Some would say 800.

[jeff_drew4]

Simon - check out this thread & related info. The sample picture below is decent and may be closer to what you are looking for?

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2341504

[simon_hughes1]

Thanks for the answers so far. Just for clarification, I had thought about the chromogenic films but as I want to shoot with just available light, and my lenses are: 28mm f2, 50mm f2, 90mm f2.8 (and not the f1 Noctilux and f1.2 Summiluxes) I wanted to get a another stop or two from the film. Is there a faster chromogenic I should try?

 

I will certainly try at least a couple of rolls of whatever film I choose under similar conditions to those I expect at the wedding. As I pointed out in my original post, my biggest concern is what can I do to mitigate the fact that the processing and printing is not within my control.

 

As to the wedding itself, this is a very small affair (only 6 of us) and this is a favor to the happy couple. They are delighted to have any pictures but I'm determined to do my very best for them.

 

Simon

[titrisol]

Neopan 1600 @1000 or 1200 would give what you need, but you'll need to print in something like Portriga grade 3

Talk to the lab about your needs, they maybe willing to help you in this.

 

Before the wedding I'd do a test roll by shooting +1, +1/2, 0, -1/2, -1 and see if that is the look you want.

 

Your other choide is Delta 3200 @1600

Just read an article last month in PT about a guy that did that here in NC. Maybe you'll be able to contact him

 

Good luck

[darklights]

Simon, IMHO...I'd go with something other than Neopan 1600. It's an O.K. film, but I'd go with one of the other recommendations. The best contrasts I could get from it at an event is in this non-use sample I shot.

[jeff_ford]

Could you flash a cream base onto colour paper and then the B&W neg?

[simon_hughes1]

Just to further clarify what I'm looking for, check out Jeff Ascough's wonderful work (www.jeffascough.com).

 

I've been corresponding with Jeff to get his opinion and he's been very helpful, but the big difference is that he's shooting the very best, low loss glass, and using chromogenic films (Kodak T400 CN). The extra 1 to 2 stops of his fast glass is what I'm trying to overcome by film.

 

I did get some other opinions of the best lab to use here (in Seattle) and I think I'm going to give Moonphoto a try.

[beau 1664876222]

Neopan 1600 has a very nice tonality but it's quite grainy and doesn't hold much shadow detail above iso 800 or so. The attached picture was done with Neopan 1600. There's nothing "rich" or "creamy" when it's enlarged above 5x7 inches or so.

 

The chromogenic films will hold a lot of detail over a wide contrast range, but they look bad if underexposed and IMHO lack that certain "shimmer" you get with traditional b&w. If I were you I might bring a bunch of tri-x and then push it to 800 when necessary indoors. Most labs can handle that.

 

You might want to take a look at the work of Aussie wedding photographer <a href="http://www.leica-gallery.net/heymanphoto/image-36300.html">Rob Heyman</a> -- he mostly shoots color neg film using Leicas and then desaturates when appropriate.<div></div>

[nicholas_t.]

Two different things, deep blacks come from exposing and processing your paper properly and creamy whites are to do with tonal range quality. Like Beau said his photo "breaks" up after 5x7... If you want creamy whites a good way to do it is with good exp/processing and some APX100 and process it in a staining developer.

[eric merrill]

I'm a fan of Neopan 1600 exposed at 1600, developed in Xtol 1:3:

 

<p>

<a href="http://canid.com/johanna/long_way_up.html"><img alt="Long way up" src="http://canid.com/pics/jbm_saucer_above3_small.jpg" border='0'></a>

<a href="http://canid.com/johanna/fistful.html"><img alt="Fistful!" src="http://canid.com/pics/jbm_wolfgang_pull1_small.jpg" border='0'></a>

<a href="http://canid.com/johanna/toes.html"><img alt="Toes" src="http://canid.com/pics/jbm_toes1_small.jpg" border='0'></a>

<a href="http://canid.com/johanna/balancing_act.html"><img alt="Balancing Act" src="http://canid.com/pics/jbm_balance_toy1_small.jpg" border='0'></a>

<a href="http://canid.com/johanna/profile.html"><img alt="Profile" src="http://canid.com/pics/jbm_chair_look1_small.jpg" border='0'></a>

 

 

<p>

--<br>

Eric<br>

<a href="http://canid.com/">http://canid.com/</a><br>

[silent1]

Just two words:<p>

 

Tri-X (400TX, that is)<br>

Diafine<p>

 

Tri-X in Diafine gives you the EI 1600 you need, with excellent tones, grain smaller than Neopan 1600 in conventional developers, and very acceptable sharpness. You'll probably have to process it yourself -- $35 for a changing bag, $25 or so for a tank and reel, $9 for a quart size package of Diafine, and another $5 or so for a bottle of fixer concentrate; you can get measuring cups at the grocery store for $5 or so that are accurate enough to mix chemicals, and reuse old soda bottles for the developer and fixer.<p>

 

The results will flatly blow away anything you can get done on silver-based B&W film at a lab.<div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

The rich blacks and creamy whites are a function of many variables. Camera lenses, film processing and printing and degree of enlargment. This is only my opinion of but others may agree. I find that the whites take on the creamy look when the film is not enlarged too much once I can see the grain structure in the print the creamy look is gone. I think old lenses help because they flare a bit more than modern ones. I have to say that I get the creamy look when I use my old Yashica A TLR with its yashicor lens Ilford HP5 developed in HC110 and only enlarge to about 5x5 inches or smaller then if I am lucky I get that silky smooth creamy look. I think the small degree of enlargement and no visible grain could be the key to this look because everthing looks so smooth. Contact prints from large format also have this look there was a discussion a while back in the B&W printing forum about if you could achieve contact print quality from small degrees of enlargment of MF negs and I believe you can get very close.

 

As for you your wedding shoot small prints from Ilford XP2 may be the answer I shot some snaps with it at my sisters wedding and the 6x4inch prints from 35mm were very smooth but they were not the same as small enlargements from the TLR but were still very nice.

 

I don't think that you will achieve that look on every shot I think that it is something that happens when all the elements come together and you get a great looking image.

[richard_ilomaki]

Simon

 

Try getting a copy of the book "Zone VI Workshop" by Fred Picker. It has the best explanation of B&W quality I have seen. It is good for silver as well as Chromgenic film.

 

Picker's prints are as good as anyone's even A. Adams, as Picker was a friend and co worker of Adams'.

 

Cheers

[mskovacs]

I recently shot a friend's wedding as her official photographer. It was HARD WORK but I was very pleased with the results. If you are shooting any sort of formal shots I don't think 35mm will cut it. I used my Rolleiflex medium format with great success. 1/500 flash synch + my Vivitar 4600 for fill saved my ass because it was blazing hot with full sun. (colour neg) If you decide to shoot any colour digital as well, you'd better know fill flash at an instinctive level.

 

For candid, available light, B&W work you have received some good advice but I'll add one caution. XP2@320 is not going to cut the mustard if you are shooting anywhere indoors at night. 1600 speed is required, 800 at a bare minimum (I used 50/1.4 lens at 1/30 and still ran out of gas).

 

Talk to your lab and give them a whirl with some test shots but don't hope for much. Quality B&W printing costs a lot of money.

 

A third option I haven't seen yet is to shoot 800-1600 speed colour negative stock and make B&W images out them in photoshop. Of course you'll then require scans and a considerable workload of post-processing. Depending on how much film you shoot and the scanning costs, it might be a good excuse to get a $300 film scanner like the Minolta IV!