good bw negative for rich depth and details of houses

[amanda_b.]

I shoot negative film mainly with a Canon Rebel 2000.<br>

 

<br>I want to create a "portfolio" of my own, more a collection,

really, of old homes in my area. I intend on going no bigger than 5x7

for this collection.<br>

 

<br>I can do slide film, but I prefer print, for now.<br>

 

<br>I want to shoot black and white for this project....but I also

want a film that is particulary adept at capturing details and

textures...<br>

 

<br>I really like the below photographers style and technique. She

shoots with infrared film though, not B&W:<br>

 

<br><a href="http://sandysorlien.com/fifty/fifty.htm"

target="_blank">Sandy Sorlien, Fifty Houses</a><br>

 

<br>I know I won't get the infrared effect using BW, but that's not

what I want. I just like her style and mood.<br>

 

<br>Any advice for a B&W negative film and it's speed that I can try?

I do have a tripod so if there is an exceptionally good BW slide

film, I'd like to know that too. I prefer Fuji when it comes to color

film, if that matters.<br>

 

<br>Thanks!

[tim_elder1]

One idea that you might want to consider is using a medium or large format camera

for this project, as larger negatives will provide detail and texture that is very difficult

and/or inherently impossible to capture on the 35mm format.

 

As for 35mm film, there are several choices in fine-grained 100 speed black and

white film: Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji each make their own version. It is also important to

keep developer and film combinations in mind; a quick search through the B&W

archives will yield many different opinions on the best way to achieve your goal.

 

Tim

[taner]

You owe it to yourself to try Kodak TMX (T-MAX 100 Professional B&W film, not to be confused with the color T-MAX crap). I am warning you though, if you use a halfway decent lens and good technique, you will want prints larger than 8x10! (If you are 100% sure about getting small prints, TMY (T-MAX 400 Professional B&W film might be a better choice, especially for getting shutter speeds which do not require Mirror Lock Up.)

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2889615-lg.jpg"></p>

Minolta MC 35mm f/1.8 handheld, Kodak TMX

[peter_langfelder]

If you are doing your own processing and printing, try any of the slow b&w films - I would go with Neopan Acros or Ilford Pan F+ (not a fan of TMax films). If you can't or don't want to do your own processing and will be printing in a minilab, go the chromogenic route - Ilford XP2 Super or one of the Kodak chromogenic B&Ws (I forget the current designation, used to be TMax 400 CN). The chromogenic films have very fine grain and are very sharp.

[rustys pics]

I recommend Agfapan APX 100. This stuff is really crisp and has none of the nasty

qualities Tmax. No blocked highlights and purple film base....

[neal_wydra1]

Dear Amanda,

 

If I am wrong, I apologize, but my guess is that you don't process or print your own negatives. If that is the case, I would like to suggest one of the chromogenic b&w films, or even a color film with b&w prints (an option now with Kodak processing). A picture CD would work just as well and you could play with the images until you get what you want.

 

The Kodak product can be found at most local drugstores, Targets, etc... The Ilford product can be found at your local camera shop. Make sure the film box says "Process C-41" on it.

 

Neal Wydra

[rj]

Hi Amanda,

<p>

The link above didn't work for me - I'd love to see her work too. Am I wrong to assume you will be shooting on 35mm film?

<p>

Here's some recommendations for 35mm film - I've tried to illustrate to make it easier to grasp some of the film's characteristics.

<p>

For crisp detail in dull lighting <a href="http://www.luxcamera.co.uk/pages/Broken%20Things/Puissance.htm" > Efke 25</a> works well, although some care over using lower dilutions of developer is required. It's fairly contrasty. Another alternative would be Maco orthochromatic 25 film. Both films curl at the best of times. At the worse of times.

<p>

For contrast situations and detailed brickwork, I'm really biased an unable to be objective about <a href="http://www.luxcamera.co.uk/VastitasAnima2.htm"> Agfa Scala </a>

<p> I'd highly recommend this, although it does require particular accuracy in metering conditions.

<p>

<a href="http://www.luxcamera.co.uk/pages/Plaubel/Chapel%20Street.htm" > Fuji Acros </a> is very fine grained and may suit your technique. It's great as a general all-purpose film - it doesn't demand experience to use and produces great tones in suitable developers.

<p>

<a href ="http://www.luxcamera.co.uk/pages/Plaubel/Aylesford%20Priory.htm" > Maco 25UP </a> is a hyper-fine grained film with good highlight rendition too. It responds well to simple toning solutions although the emulsion curls violently.

<p>

<a href= "http://www.luxcamera.co.uk/pages/Fiat%20Voluntas%20Tua/Pater%20noster.htm" > Agfa APX100 </a> is great for contrastier situations. Processed in rodinal, I find the results very unlike modern emulsions.

<p>

I'd recommend Ilford Pan F+ too, although I tend to use this for landscape work mostly.

<p>

Hope that helps. Best wishes with your project and look forward to seeing the results.

<p>

Regards

[jim_simmons]

Assuming you'll develop your own film, and since you say you will keep the prints on the small side, consider Kodak PlusX and whatever Ilford's current equivelant is. Rate them at 1/2 or 2/3 their normal ISO rating and adjust development time accordingly. This will give you lots of shadow details under the eaves and in the bush shadows, yet not block out the highlights of white porch columns, etc. If you shoot these on a tripod, you'll have very sharp, beautiful-tone prints. I am supposing that the tone of the infrared photos is part of what you're responding to, so searching out a solution that produces beautiful tones will be worth your time. Also, don't shoot after 10 AM or before 3 PM, the light is too boring between those times. Also, for sharpness' sake, don't use one of the cheap zooms that they sell with the Rebels. Consider a dedicated 28mm, 35mm or 50mm lens. The images will be crisper, especially if you end up deciding to make 8x10s or even larger. A zoom lens shot off a tripod will not give you that sharpness that architectural subjects need to be successful shots. I love taking pictures of buildings - enjoy!

[pics]

I was looking at B+W films for similar applications. Id try to get some Kodak tech-pan before its gone. Its high resolution and almost invisible grain is reportedly unequaled. Its a 25 iso film so you would definitely need your tripod. Maybe those with more experience could comment further. I just ordered some from B+H so apparently its still available.

[klix]

If you do not develop your own, then forget about traditional silver-halide B&W film.

 

I would suggest Agfa Scala if you feel comfortable with slides. Remember it is NOT a slide film for B&W shooters, but rather, a B&W film for slide shooters.

 

If you'd rather stick with film, then try the C41 B&W emulsions.

 

Also, if you are going to use a 35mm camera for your stated purpose, bring a tall ladder :-)

[amanda_b.]

Thank you for all your responses.<br>

 

<br>I do not know why that link does not work - sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.<br>

 

<br><a href="http://www.sandysorlien.com/fifty/fifty.html" target="_blank">Let's try this again - Fifty Houses</a><br>

 

<br>Remember, she's using infrared. But it was her book that inspired me.<br>

 

<br>In response to some of the questions, I will not unfortuantely be printing my own pictures, but taking them to a lab.<br>

 

<br>I know I said I wouldn't go any bigger than 5x7 but never say never - it would be a perk to be able to do so and not loose quality.<br>

 

<br>I'm kind of stuck between wanting to create etheral, dreamlike pictures or stark, so-honest-it-hurts pictures...<br>

 

<br>The homse I wish to photograph are for the most part abandonded and certianly OLD. OLD OLD OLD. They have lots of blemish, and are very weather-worn. That's something that fascinates me and I think needs to be protected (history) and I wanted my own little collection of said houses to show people and to have at the ready. I intend on adding a bit of text for each house, much like the photographer in the above book did, about the history, location, and the general sense of the homes. I have been on contact with numerous local historical societies and have taken the time to find out about the history - one house, dating to 1871, was built by a Confederate Army Captain.<br>

 

<br> Out of curiosity, does anybody have a scan of an Agfa print they could upload for me to see?<br>

 

<br>Thanks again!

[James G. Dainis]

You'll find that the time of day has a good deal to do with the results that you get. On a bright sunny day you will have deep shadows; the shade cast on a porch will appear black. On an overcast day or around sunup or sundown the shade will be much lighter and detail will show on the porch. Try both to see which effect is what you are after.

[taner]

I do not do my own printing or processing with B&W, and yet, I am enjoying the hell out of 'real' B&W photography with 'real' B&W film. I get TMX (ISO 100) enlargements @ 10x15, and they look fantastic. I expose TMY (rated ISO 400) @ ISO 1600 and enjoy available light to the max with good results. I have a 10x15 enlargement from TMY (400) exposed @ 800, and all I get is compliments on that print...

 

So how come am I so satisfied with 'real' B&W? 1) I live in a big metropol (Toronto), as opposed to 'in the middle of nowhere town', and there are professionals here who will handle your B&W film better than an most enthusiasts can ever dream of doing... 2)I have been using a lab that specializes on custom B&W & color negative prints, and afer trying a few rolls, I have figured out the exposure/pushing/printing formulas that work. 3)I have accepted that if I want small prints, I will either pay the same rate as 8x10 enlargements (the minimum charge size, or I will scan the film and get prints from 1 hour labs that do digital (at 4x6, the results are: you guessed it, who cares about 4x6 prints...)

 

Without pointing at anybody in particular since I do not have any idea as to where they are 'coming from' (location or experince), I would like to say this: please ask B&W beginners where they are from, and then write true B&W off! In a 1 million plus city, I guarantee you that there will be a lab that will handle your B&W perfectly.

 

I have tried the 'fake' B&W (ILFORD XP2 - supposedly 400, but 200 in reality), and I can tell you this much, it certainly is not in the same league as the real deal Kodak TMY (400). O.K. I am being chicken in order not to be grilled by 'internet forum bullies'; there is no comparison to the real deal, period. (Although, I have been told that XP2 scans like a 'dream', but that is not what you are after anyways.)

[jay_de_fehr]

Amanda,

 

if you like the IR look, why not use IR film? If you don't want to use IR film, then I suggest that you find your lab first, and ask them which B&W film they recommend. They will recommend the one that they are most experienced in processing and printing, and you can avoid the learning curve inherent in taking an unfamiliar film to a lab for processing. Any widely available B&W film is capable of beautiful results when handled properly. Slower films are likely to be finer grained than faster films, but just about any film can handle a 5x7 enlargement. Tmax 100, Tmax 400, or Tri-X are probably the most commonly used, and well known B&W films in the U.S., and any one of them is more than up to the task. Good luck.

 

Jay

[jonathan_bundick]

Shoot at least one roll of HP5+. While it might not be as contrasty as you want, it yields excelent detail.<div></div>

[scott_eaton]

<I>So how come am I so satisfied with 'real' B&W?</i><p>If you don't like XP2, that's fine, just please stop bragging about TMY 400. For a conventional B/W film, TMY 400 is about as 'gutless' as they come and has about as much tonality as an old grey sock. At least use a *real* B/W film like Tri-X or HP5 vs a film that's only capable of maybe 4-zones and custom printing.<P>If this we're my shoot I'd use a slow speed, fine grained slide film like E100G or medium contrast 100 speed print film, and have a lab like MPIX make digital prints on Kodak's B/W paper. <P>In other respects it's a waste of time recommending conventional B/W film because Amanda isn't doping her own processing, and using chromogenics like XP2 or any C-41 B/W with conventional lab printing isn't going to yield the results she's looking for. The digital mini-labs using the Kodak B/W paper seem to be delivering the best results for not portrait orientated B/W shooting.

[taner]

"...old grey sock..." good one!<div></div>

[amanda_b.]

Thanks to you all for your replies.

 

I ended up buying Kodak TMax 100. My lab also had some Ilford but I will try the Kodak first.

 

I may go and buy a yellow filter as well - do you recommend this?