B&W film for wedding work???

[jesse_de_la_llata]

I'm shooting a wedding in about 4 weeks, and they would like for me

to take some b&w photos. For color I'll be using NPH, but I'm not

sure which b&w film to use. I've personally shot (not weddings)

Neopan 400, TMAX 400, and BW400CN. I like them all, but since I've

never been in a high contrast situation (white dress/black tux) I'm

not sure what to use. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.

 

Jesse

[mattalofs]

Do you do your own developing?

[jesse_de_la_llata]

Actually, no! I usually take it out to a pro lab.

 

Jesse

[eric friedemann]

Ilford XP-2 @ E.I. 200.<div></div>

[david_beal___richmond_hts.]

I second Eric's suggestion. I shoot XP2 Super at 320, but either way, it is the b/w film for weddings. Also good for newsletter/newspaper photos, especially engagement shots.

 

Good shooting

 

/s/ David Beal ** Memories Preserved Photography LLC

[johnmarkpainter]

Jesse,

 

A common opinion....The only advantage to shooting XP-2 as opposed to just having

Grayscale prints done from your NPH shots is that XP-2 can be printed on real B&W Paper

in a darkroom.

 

I personally prefer 'real' B&W Film, but I also process my own film and do my own B&W

printing. For High volume work, I will sometimes shoot XP-2 but only because I can

choose to print my own Enlargements while still having the convenience of Lab processing

and Lab 4x6 proofs.

 

jmp

[dougsmiley]

Eric, that's a really nice photograph, but I wish there was more detail in the gown and gloves. Probably could have been printed a bit darker overall.

[eric friedemann]

Doug, the negative prints perfectly in a darkroom or digitally from my Epson 2200, with detail in the highlight areas of the dress and gloves at the appropriate contrast level. One thing I'm struggling to learn is getting the right amount of contrast and correct blacks, whites and grays when scanning for the web. Also, I have trouble getting images to hold detail when sized down to 400-500 pixels on the long side.

 

 

The image you are looking at appears perfect on the main CRT screen for my imaging computer- a large Trinitron from Dell. I have the Monaco Optix thingy and am constantly recalibrating that screen.

 

 

The image looks a little dark on the CRT for my office computer, but looks a little light on the flat screen monitor for my regular computer here at home. Long story short, I find scanning and preparing images for the web rather frustrating.

[fotografz]

It's the internet Eric. Ya can't win. More important to get the prints right than wimpy 72

dpi, 100K squinty web pix.

 

Are you converting to sRGB before uploading to web?

 

Anyway, sensitive shot.

[eric friedemann]

Yes, the image is in sRGB.

[fotografz]

Oh, forgot to say that another advantage of any of the C41 B&Ws is that any lab can

process them. With the shrinking amount of pro labs that do traditional B&W, it's a

consideration. They also scan nicely.

[eric friedemann]

Right, the ability to use Digital ICE in scanning XP-2 or the Kodak C-41 B&W films to automatically remove dust is a really big advantage over traditional B&W films.

[r.m.]

I love XP-2 Super when printed on b&w paper. The problem is that most labs proof it on color paper & it looks awful. If your lab prints on color paper, it's best to use the Kodak Portra film. If they can print on b&w paper then use traditional b&w (if they develop it) or go for the XP-2 Super.

[mattalofs]

If you don't do your own developing c41 is the way to go. Even if you do your own develping c41 might be the way to go. Conventional B&W is lots of work. Worth it. But labor intensive.

[blakley]

I agree that XP2 doesn't look as good on color paper as on B&W paper, but it still looks better (to me) than any other chromogenic B&W on color paper.

[adrian_morgan]

if you go to the effort of shooting B&W at the wedding, you might as well do it properly. I love tri-x and ilford 3200. Costs a bit more, but doesn't come back with the tinges of colour everything c41 product has

[eric friedemann]

"I love XP-2 Super when printed on b&w paper. The problem is that most labs proof it on color paper & it looks awful."

 

 

You are using the wrong lab. XP-2 can look just fine on color paper.

 

 

Yes, it would be swell if there were a wealth of semi-custom labs around that still printed B&W negatives onto B&W paper AND charged reasonable prices. But the last time I checked with one of the few competent Chicago labs that will still make B&W prints on B&W paper, the lab quoted me $7 each for 4x6 proof prints. In other words, the lab was willing to do enlargements but was pricing smaller prints so high as to discourage that business.

 

 

The great equalizer is digital C-print machines. Whereas my store's old Noritsu optical machine had a hard time maintaining a neutral gray with XP-2 or Kodak C-41 B&W films, our current Noritsu digital machines- one a 300 d.p.i. laser printer and one 400 d.p.i. MLVA (little LED) printer- equalize B&W images and are able to give a constant gray on C papers.

 

 

Would I prefer all my XP-2 images proof-printed on true B&W paper; yes. But, some of the better new digital-to-C-print machines are capable of making very competent proof prints from XP-2.

 

 

The one problem with printing XP-2 onto C paper is contrast. A C-print machine cannot vary contrast. This is why I shoot XP-2 at 200- I consistantly get the correct contrast in 4x5-4x6 inch proof prints. As an added bonus, at E.I. 200, XP-2 appears surprisingly small-grained for a 200 speed B&W film.

[jim_occi2]

A wedding photo colleague (and good friend) recommends shooting XP-2 at 320. Why is that?

 

Jim

[eric friedemann]

I find XP-2 makes the best machine prints when shot at E.I. 200- correct contrast being the key. I have also found the film easiest to print in a darkroom contrast-wise at E.I. 200. And, the lower the film speed you shoot XP-2 at, the smaller the apparent grain of the film.

 

 

But that's just my personal preference- a lot of people prefer to shoot the film at E.I. 320. I don't think its a right/wrong thing, just what works best for an individual photographer.

[r.m.]

Someone did a test a while back on XP2-Super with regard to shooting a different ISOs from 100-800. I'll try doing a search to see if I can find it. If I recall correctly the finest grained/detail shots were at 200 (not much difference between 100 & 200).

 

Eric, I am fortunate in that I use a lab that still prints 4x6 proofs on b&w paper at reasonable prices (.50 per proof). I also use a very reputable color lab that prints b&w on color paper & I have yet to like the way XP2 looks when they print it...

[paul_kurian]

I prefer Kodak TMAX 400CN for weddings.Sample picture below<div></div>