Best B&W film and developer for PORTRAITS outside studio

[paul_sivley]

What's the best B&W film and developer for portraits taken with at

most flash on location and why? I'm traveling to Syria May 21 and

plan to shoot a lot of location portraiture, some in B&W. I'm not

interested in the C41 films, and haven't been overwhelmed by Tri-X

for portraiture.

 

Thanks!

 

Paul

[bill_dewberry]

Plus X & D76.

[silent1]

It depends very much on the format you use. If you shoot 35 mm, then you probably won't like Tri-X much for portraits because of its grain; most portraitists prefer a very smooth look that just can't be obtained in large prints from 35 mm Tri-X. If that's you, I'd suggest trying T-Max 100 (TMX); it's reputed to be a little tricky to control, but when you get it in hand, it's one of the smoothest and finest grained films available without getting into "slow" ISO ratings (I, at least, find EI 50 and below to be pretty restrictive).

 

If you shoot 120, even in 645, and still don't like Tri-X, then I'd suggest trying either TMX or TMY (T-Max 400); I shoot TMY in 6x6 and 6x9 format, and I'm very impressed with its smoothness, though it has less latitude than 400TX. I prefer the 400 speed because I can still shoot it in full daylight, even in my antiques, but it will reach much further down into dusk or shadow than any 100 speed film.

[johnmarkpainter]

Paul,

 

You are just asking what developer to use? That alone isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

How have you been using TriX? D76 is an excellent Portrait Developer when used with Tri-

X rated at 250 and reduced development.

 

D76 gives a softer look. Reduced development keeps the Highlights from Blowing out.

Increased exposure raises shadow detail. LOOKS GREAT.

 

If you are after a sharper look and especially if you are using Medium Format, then Tri-X @

250 in Rodinal is great.

 

HP5 developed in DDX or Xtol is a more modern look that is worth a try.

 

My only experience with TMax was that it was way too contrasty.

 

jmp

[jay_de_fehr]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that May in Syria is going to be sunny and bright, in which case, your biggest challenge is likely going to be contrast control. While it might at first be counterintuitive, slower films are inherently higher contrast, and might not be as user-friendly as a faster film, like Ilford Delta 400 developed in a compensating developer like Xtol at 1:3 dilution. This combination provides very smooth, fine-grained portraits in available light. Enjoy your trip to Syria.<div></div>

[kelly_flanigan1]

Ok; flashbacksl Super-XX and Polydol! :)

[patrick_s2]

I toss in another nod for Delta 400. Looks awesome in diffused light. If the subject is a man, try some in Ilfosol. A woman, ID11 or DDX.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Patrick

[test11664875106]

<P>Hi Poul,

 

<p>I posted quite similar question few days ago (though it was narrow'd to Ilford films). Just two days ago I finished (yet another) test roll of FP4 and (again) developed it in Perceptol 1+1, but this time with 30% reduced development time (my "normal" time for this combo is 15 minutes). When I printed several test portraits on 5x7" with MG-filter #2.5 I was very surprised that I virtually need a loupe to see the grain! (Though web isn't much prove but have a look at <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/shared/portrait.tcl?user_id=329316">an example here</A>)

 

<p>Usually FP4 using "normal" developemnet in Perceptol 1+1 gives me E.I. 100. With 30% dev.time reduction I got E.I. 50 (To Chris Waller: this is almost what you recommended recently, thanks for idea!). And looks like such development gives nearly N-3 (!) contrast reduction (you might need it while in Syria this time of year). I'm going to repeat the test because I messed up contrast test.

[lex_jenkins]

Just as an alternative suggestion, TMX (T-Max 100) at EI 100 in Microphen produces excellent contrast control in bright light and a unique tonality.<p>

 

Here are a couple of examples (not portraits but they do give an indication of typical tonality and contrast control in extremely contrasty situations):<p>

 

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/1605880&size=lg><u>Bass Hall, in light and shadow</u></a><p>

<p>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/1596474&size=lg><u>Triad</u></a>

[roman_sonnleitner1]

I personally love Fuji Neopan 400 in Calbe A49 for fine-grained, smooth portraits with creamy skin-tones; NP400 is nice in ID11 1+1 or Rodinal 1+50 (more grain, but sharper), too, and I have heard of good results with XTOL 1+1.

TriX (in Rodinal 1+50 or ID11 1+1) or Agfa APX400 (in Rodinal 1+25) would be my choice for 'character' portraits/streetphotography style portraits - with a bit more grain & grittyness.

For very fine grained, smooth results in the 100/125 ASA range I love FP4+ in ID11 1+1 best, for a bit more character/grain/sharpness you might try Efke KB100 in Rodinal 1+50.

 

Roman

[test11664875106]

Lex,

 

on the first photo I can't see details in the shadow, are there any? What really looks nice is separation in high values.

[john_murphy1]

Paul,

You mentioned that you aren't overwhelmed by Tri-X for portraiture. It's a funny thing, Tri-X doesn't look too impressive on the straight contact prints, but you can really make some nice prints if you play around with it in the darkroom (e.g., split contrast printing, etc.). You may ask, "why bother?" To that I would say, "because of the midtones". Tri-X is pretty unique in that respect: it records alot of information in the midtone range which can later be brought out at print time. Since the skin tones usually fall in this range using Tri-X affords you more flexibility when manipulating the skin tones. I hope you reconsider using Tri-X.

[scott_eaton]

Your shadows are fine, Lex. Somebody needs a new monitor.

 

Superb example of how well the TMX films handle high contrast situations given somebody who knows how to process them. Open sunlight is where I feel these films excel.

 

My issue with TMX though is the other end of the equation. Under low contrast lighting or overcast skies I can't stand TMX or TMY, and in many cases look worse than the chromogenics under the same circumstances.

[lex_jenkins]

Ilia, you need to adjust your monitor. There are various instructions around the web for doing this but basically you can start by setting the contrast to near-maximum and then gradually bringing up the brightness until you can distinguish all the patches from black to white in the attached image.

 

Try comparing your adjustments against a white, grey and black background. You'll quickly see why it's difficult to adjust a monitor by eye - it's easily fooled by the background, room lighting, etc.

[lex_jenkins]

Here's another, simpler greyscale strip.

[peter_langfelder]

Here's an example of Acros shot at ISO 50 in full sunlight and developed in Perceptol.<div></div>

[scott_eaton]

Ditto again, Acros being very similiar to TMX 100, it works very well in high energy lighting. More proof that these films acclimate very well to situations that mimmick a studio with daylight flash, which was where they were designed to excel.

[jay_de_fehr]

TMX also works very well in flat lighting, provided it's handled appropriately.<div></div>

[test11664875106]

Peter, how much do you reduce dev. time in % from your "normal" development of that film in perceptol? I noticed not many people here favor perceptol (may be because it's powder) and recently did only my first test with reduced reducing contrast also in perceptol 1+1 (though FP4). With 30% less dev.time I got probably too much density reduction (around 2 stops in slight highlights) if my measurements correct. But a shot from harsh light in the forest came out with nice details from one extreme to another.

 

Lex and Scott, my monitor was indeed off, can't remember why I lowered brightness. That's explains why I'm now getting comments that my last photo was too bright.

[scott_eaton]

<I>TMX also works very well in flat lighting, provided it's handled appropriately.</i><P>Sure......provided you use the levels control in Photoshop as a crutch to generate an actual black. Good luck convincing me that a straight scan of TMX rated at speed and shot under heavy skies is going to produce decent end to end tonality. Call it a difference in preferred aethestic, but when I shoot B/W for portraits, I prefer my skin tones to occupy more than two zones. This is why we shoot conventional B/W film to begin with - to exploit density range. Not produce images that make XP2 in the shade look 'snappy'.

[jay_de_fehr]

Scott, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just sharing my experiences and posting examples. Relax, and believe what you want.

[lex_jenkins]

Jay, that's a nice portrait but it has more of the wispy look of some lith prints than a typical TMX photo. I think that's the point Scott is making. It's fine if it's to one's taste, but tastes differ.

 

Ilia, developers like Perceptol and Microdol-X have an undeserved reputation for producing "unsharp" photos. Bull. I think it's just a matter of working with the developers to get good results. I've seen some outstanding portraits with gorgeous tonality, as sharp as you'd want, done with TX at EI 100 in Microdol-X. And Peter's photo shows very well that Perceptol is capable of producing sharp photos (it sure doesn't look like post-scan oversharpening to me).

[r.m.]

My current favorites are NP400 in DD-X and NP100 SS @ 200 in diafine...<div></div>

[r.m.]

Oh, who am I kidding...I love just about all of the b&w films I've laid my hands on!

[steve_s.]

My favorite combination for portraits is FP4+ developed in FX-2. It is bitingly sharp, so it can be good if you want to capture every crag in a craggy face, but can be bad if the person has skin blemishes that they don't want to see in the final picture.

 

For an example, see this picture of my daughter.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1258407