What films do you use for street photography?

[edlang]

I bought a film camera a few days ago, and with it some Ilford HP5

film. I wasn't quite prepared for how grainy it would be in comparison

to low-ISO digital stuff. So, what films (or even just film speeds) do

you generally use for street photography? I'll probably pick up some

100/125ASA film in the next couple of days and try my like with that.

</p><p>

I chose HP5 because I thought it would be necessary -- I bought a

Ricoh GR1, which has a 28mm f/2.8 lens and is a bit slower than the

faster primes I've been using with my 10D.

[michaelging]

I use Trix 400 film. There are times when shooting on the street that you need the speed and Depth of Field. I find that in a developer like D76 or Microdol, I get fine enough grain to make up to 11X14 or even 16x20 with out any problems. I keep my negs thin by not over-exposing or over-developing. This keeps the grain down to a fair size.I also fill the frame to keep from wasting neg space. The great latitude of this film makes a perfect match for street photography.

[thomas_sullivan]

errrrrrrr.....Ilford HP5 ;o)

 

actually, it's called HP5+....and I also use Kodak Tri-X. Who developed it? and in what developer? It is grainy, but not objectionably so, however. Developers and how it was developed does matter.

 

You do need the speed of it, that you were right about. You can use ISO 100 film, and it looks good, I also have used T-Max 100 and FP4+........looks great, but one step in the shadows (or the subways) and you'll wish you had the ISO 400 in your cam.

[dumpster001]

check your developer or the process as Tom says.

[edlang]

I went and talked to the guy who developed it, and he did point out that a number of the frames were overexposed. He also said that his lab uses Kodak T-Max developer, and that he didn't think much of Ilford films. (I have no idea what T-Max is in this context -- this is my first film camera, and the only T-Max I've heard of in the last few days is a 3200ASA film.)

 

He mentioned Kodak TCN as a replacement that would be more suited to his lab. I'll try and shoot a roll of that in the next few days.

 

Is film nomenclature sufficiently important to make the distinction between "HP5" and "HP5+" necessary?

[thomas_sullivan]

<br><br><center><img src="http://tssullivan.net/24hrnyc/images/35.jpg"><br><br>HP5+, HC-110 developer</center><br><br><br><center><img src="http://tssullivan.net/tirduvisage/images/model1.jpg"><br><br>Tri-X, HC-110 developer</center><br><br><br><br>Nothing wrong with either one of those films in my mind. HP5 was an Ilford film in the pre 1980's?....HP5+ replaced it. It's a better film. So yes, it does matter.

[capocheny]

Edward,

 

Tom is absolutely correct when he talks about shooting with 100ASA and wishing it were

400 when you meter into a darker area. It could be by as much as 2-3 stops depending on

the day.

 

Personally, I've been shooting XP2-Super and like the lattitude of the film. I've also shot

with the TCN-400. Both are chromogenic films designed for processing in C41 chemistry. I

like both of these films. However, I'll most likely be getting back into shooting with Tri-X

in the next short while and start processing it myself.

 

I'll also be shooting with Fuji 800 film during the bleak days of winter here (rain season.)

 

Hope this helps...

 

Cheers

[jeff_lu]

if i go out shooting on a day im confident ill have good light - fp4+ or occasionally apx

100

 

if not, hp5+ or occasionally tri-x

 

at night, hp5+/tri-x at 400 or 800 if i feel like it or delta 3200 at 1600 or p3200 at what's

necessary above 1600

 

usually im just using the ilford trinity...and hp5+ most of the time

[paul a. roid]

recently mostly Tri-X @1600 developed in Diafine<br>

(I'm a sucker for the grain and contrast - it just works for NYC pics)<p>

 

Tri-x @400 souped in Ilford DD-X<p>

I'm not too crazy about HP5 tho...

[dominic_.]

If it's sunny:

 

BW: APX100 or FP4

 

Colour: Kodachrome

 

If it's light overcast:

 

EPY (about the only time I can shoot it outdoors)

 

If it's raining:

 

HP5 or Tri-X

 

Out of all of these my favs would have to me APX and Kodachrome, just love them on sunny days...

[matt_deviney]

Tri-X for its exposure latitude. Alot of guys are doing the whole "no shadow detail" thing now-a-days in street photography, meaning, they are shooting with the "sunny 16" rule without regard for what is in the shadows. It just depends on what you are going for; but my point is, such a technique would defenitely be more suited to slower speed films. It's something to think about.

[steve g]

For me<br>

Delta 100 if its sunny enough<br>

HP5+ @ 400 if its daytime but not sunny<br>

HP5+ @ 800/1600 if it is dusk->early darkness with lots of ambient light<br>

Delta 3200 if it is too dark for above

[chris_waller]

Ilford Delta 100 rated AT 50 ASA mostly, but either HP5 or TX 400 rated at 160 if the weather is not so bright.

[andy e]

My staple stuff is Tri-X which I shoot at 320. If its an exceptionally bright day I use a little Agfapan 100. For low light, I'll also use a little Fuji Neopan 1600 or Delta 3200. Everything except the Delta 3200 I process in Rodinal, throwing in a tiny pinch of sodium sulfite depending on how much or how little grain I want. The Delta 3200 always gets processed in Ilfotec DD-X.

 

I'd strongly recommend the Tri-X. You can pull it to 160 or push it upward to 1600 if you need to. So long as you're careful about how you process it, it always comes out quite nice.

[scott_davis5]

Try the Bergger BPF 200 - I normally shoot it at 100, developed in PMK Pyro, but it will still yield excellent results at the nominal speed of 200.

[arraga]

TMY for versatility. When it's sunny I shoot it @250 and develop in rodinal 1+50. At low light levels, i use an 800 or 1600 EI and develop in microphen 1+1.

 

I'm looking into bulk loading; many times I do not finish a full roll in one outing (or two, or three...), and my favourite street camera only goes to 1/500. If I'm in the middle of a 1600 roll, and it's sunny outside, I must change rolls, keep tabs of the number of expositions, and not mix it up with the fully exposed ones... besides, a 12 exp bulk loaded roll would be the same as the 120's I use in my TLR...

 

Saludos, Santiago

[joshchapman]

If you're not developing it yourself, I wouldn't want to go with a true BW film. While Tri-X and HP5+ are both excellent films, if you can't play with the development times and solutions yourself you lose much of the advantage they offer. For low grain and commercial developing you can't beat C41 films like Kodak TCN 400 (now known as BW400CN) and Ilford XP2 super 400. I prefer the ilford myself, because it's easy to print if I want to do it myself, but it sounds like your lab is a kodak lab, in which case I'd go with the kodak film. Have fun, and experiment a bit. Oh yeah, some people go for the grainy look, so you never know: it might grow on you...

[edlang]

I've a lot to learn about black and white film, it seems, be it correct exposure / metering technique, development and film scanning. Here are the best two images from the miserable effort that was my first roll:

</p><p>

<a href="http://tsumakin.net/photos/20041024-film.html">http://tsumakin.net/photos/20041024-film.html</a>

</p><p>

And uh, <a href="http://tsumakin.net/images/2004/10/24/beer-tins-crop.jpg">ewwww</a>.

[michaelging]

Edward

 

A good first a try. I little faster shutter speed would help the second shot, and a there is a little dead space on the first one. Remember ,every roll you shoot and learn something,gets you that much closer to being able to put your vision into the print. Shoot lots of film, and remember what you did that was right and wrong,then don't repeat the wrong things.You seem to have a good Eye,just figure out how to make the camera,film,developing,printing,scanning,give your finished print the vision you saw when you clicked the shutter.

[aristotelis_grammatikakis]

During the sunny days, here in Greece, 100asa is fine for street shots, but I usually go for a 400asa for better DOF and flexibillity. Never found the grain obstractive, especially when it comes to street shooting.<BR>

I have used almost all kinds of film but I like to stick with HP5+/D-76 for most of my street work.

I work both with 135 (35mm) and 120 (medium format) and the film suits both sizes.

My latest experiment has been 6x6 Tri-X 320 and Rodinal which was a wonderful combination. Oh, yes, grainy, but really beautiful grain!

<P>

a.

[carl_a._mann]

Any classic B&W ASA 400 film available -- Tura 400 (which is said to be the cheap version of Agfa APX 400), TMAX 400, Fuji Neopan 400, Delta 400... for low light situations, I prefer Fuji Neopan 1600 (see

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=009mk5&photo_id=2785202&photo_sel_index=0

and

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=009qdF&photo_id=2804137&photo_sel_index=0

[victor4]

There are two different 'looks' that I try to acheive. One is a harsh, caustic, kind of a rough tough look. The other is smooth with nice gradual tonal changes. These different looks are achieved as follows:

 

I use Ilford Delta 3200 if cloudy, rainy or otherwise low enough light. Processed in D-76 with a bit excessive agitation it produces a grainy look which I like for some situations. I shoot the 3200 at 1600. (For your camera simply add +1 exposure compensation and you will be shooting at ISO 1600. For a more 'nasty' look use no exposure compensation, for an ISO of 3200)

 

For the smoother look I use HP5+. Not being the most adept b/w processer I again use D-76 but with much gentler and less agitation than with the 3200. Produces much less grain. I've seen 16x20's from 35mm HP5+ that would amaze you. No they were not mine, I wish.

 

A third 'look' can easily be had with Ilford Pan-F+. Again it is very do-able in D-76. (It's so easy to get started this way). Pan-F is a much slower speed film and has much less grain.(Again you may find you want additional exposure, just add +1 compensation, this will give you an ISO of 25 instead of 50). Because Pan-F is so slow I've never use it for street photography with people.

 

Above all, learn to do your own film processing, it is quite EASY definitely NOT difficult. If I can do it anyone can. Yes, there are better ways to develop the above films for optimal performance. But to get started I can't think of an easier way than what is stated above. And it works!

 

You will learn that the 'film look' can enhance your photos. There are many ways to process your film which will give you the look you want. There is soooooo much info here on photo.net that you will go crazy trying to absorb it all. So just get started in a simple way.

 

If you haven't been spoiled by your 10D you will find that b/w film shooting will make you a better photographer. The amount of effort that goes into each print/roll soon makes you want to maximize your output. So you try harder on each shot, that is unless you are so spoiled by the 10D that you just give up soon after you started.

 

Good luck!

 

vic... :)

[todd frederick]

Digital.

 

Right now I use a Canon 10D, Oly E-10, or Oly C-5050 (street camera).

 

I have used film since 1958, and moved to digital a couple of years ago, and haven't look back!

 

What else can I say?

[gaius1]

Firstly, there is no such thing as FILM grain. Grain is the result of an interaction between: the film, the developer, the agitation used during development. Of those three, I try to keep agitation the same between developments. HP5+ in Ilfotec DDX is quite smooth - the same film in Ilfosol S is quite grainy. HP5+ is a very good film; if I had to choose just one film and stick to it, that'd be my choice.

 

But if you are using a lab you have no control. The people there will just stick all their B&W into the TMAX developer for the same time. Now according to my notes, HP5+ needs 6:30 at 20C. TRI-X needs 6 minutes in the same developer. Plus-X needs 5:45. Now, Ilford recommends 4 inversions in 10 seconds every minute. Kodak recommends 5 in 5 seconds every 30 seconds. So, if it's a Kodak lab, it might be underdeveloping and overagitating your HP5+. If you develop yourself, you can give each film exactly what it needs.

 

I did a street shoot the other day alternating rolls of TRI-X and Plus-X. But the one before that I used HP5+ @ ISO 800.<div></div>

[neil_baylis]

Edward,

 

the picture of the barrels loks to me as though there's a scanning problem. Those shadows look like what I see when I scan conventional silver based film using ICE (Infrared dust removal). If your scanner has ICE, you have to turn it off when you scan conventional B&W film. Chromogenic B&W film, like TCN400, works fine though. If you didn't scan it yourself, then whoever scanned it needs some education.