35mm B&W Portrait Film at up to 12" x 10"

[ricardovaste]

Sorry for starting a new thread on this subject, as its probably had

references to in the past but i want to make sure as its for important photos.

(ie; ones ill supposedly be payed for).

 

The main reason i ask is for grain:print size and results with flash. As you

can obviously never be sure of the conditions i may need to use (and will try

anyway) some with flash.

 

They will be printed up to 12" x 10" most likely. (but if they did go slightly

bigger it would be good to know). As im unlikely to have used the films that

will be mentioned i will be sending the films away to be processed. (but under

controlled, experienced conditions where i know exactly what equipment is

used). So basically i want a film that has great tones (for 35mm anyway) and

one that doesnt show any/much grain at up to 12" x 10". And one that works

okay with flash (not sure if this is an issue with B&W or not).

 

Recommened developers/times/devlopment dilutions aswel as films are welcome as

i can pass the information onto the lab.

 

Advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks you,

Richard

 

p.s. please let me know if theres any important information that ive left out.

[25asa]

Any of the slower films would be better as long as the contrast can be controlled. Problem is with a lab its hard to do that and get acceptable results. I find the 400 speed films better for contrast when doing portraits, but then you get grain. I would buy a roll of choice and try it out at the lab you will be sending to before making a choice for the paid shoot. Slow films with good grain are Efke 25, Ilford Pan F+, Ilford FP4+, Kodak Plus X, Kodak TMax 100 (some people dont like the look of T grain films with people shots), Ilford Delta 100, Fuji Acros 100, and Rollei Pan 25. I would get more comments and then try one- preferably one that you can buy at your store. You could also shoot a C-41 B&W film which usually have less contrast and can be done at any lab. But usually its on color paper. I like my B&W to stay on B&W paper.

[stephen sullivan]

Shoot some friends and start off with this...

 

Kodak's Plus-X with Kodak's D-76 @ 1:1 dilution, or

 

Ilford's FP4+ w/ Ilford's ID-11

 

Also, see what you like better, shooting with a UV filter or perhaps with a Yellow, Orange

or Red filter.

 

Sounds like you need to a bit of trial and error before you start charging people.

[mb81]

I think that PlusX in D76 is a bad choice. When enlarged more than 6x9" it gets a bit grainy. I think you will find that Ilford Delta 100 is an excellent film for what you are looking for.

 

I have gone up to 12"x18" with this film (35mm) and you can hardly see any grain.

[stephen sullivan]

Plus-X a bit grainy at 6x9? I'm looking at a 10.5" x 15.75" right now that I shot on Plus-X with a B&W 090 (25A) developed in Xtol Stock and printed on Ilford MGG. The grain is barly visable.

 

Again, Plus-X in D-76 @ 1:1, at 20c is a great starting combination to work with and to start learning with.

[frank.schifano]

First, I'm feel compelled to say that I think a 10x12 print from a 35mm negative is a bit too large for a truly high quality print. An 8x10 with perhaps 1/4 to 1/2 inch borders is my personal limit for a really nice print from a negative that small. Of course, you may feel differently but there it is.

 

I'm also compelled to agree with Stephen on his recommendation of Plus-X or FP4+ in D-76/ID-11 (same developer, different brand.) Either of these two films paired with either of these two developers will deliver a certain richness to portraiture that can be missing from the newer technology films like TMX (TMax 100) or Delta 100. Similar results, with perhaps slightly less apparent grain, can be had with XTOL. In no way am I berating these newer technology films. I am particularly fond of TMax 100 for it's exceedingly low grain and extremely high resolving power. For me, it works very well in street photography applications and for technical subjects. I just don't think it is the best choice for formal portaiture.

 

More important that recommending a developer and development time to a lab though is to describe the lighting conditions under which the exposures were made. Telling the lab the exposure index you used to make the exposure and whether the fill light is 1, 1 1/2 or 2 stops less intense than the main light will give any lab worth its weight the information it needs to develop your film properly.

[frank.schifano]

Forget to mention that you should also tell the lab what the intended end product will be. If scanning and conversion to digital output is part of the plan, you might want a negative with a bit less contrast than you would for something that is to be printed optically.

[larrydressler]

Don't listen to the nay slayers. as long as you have the light Plus-x is fine ... but Efke 50 is even better it depends on your subject .. softer for women than men....And as for passing it on to the lab.. that means you are not doing it yourself and that voids all warrenties.... If it is that important you should be doing it yourself..... and most labs these days use Xtol or T-Max developer.....

 

 

Sorry I can't be of help.

 

Larry<div></div>

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

Hello Richard!

 

With the brand new ROLLEI SCANFILM CN 400 PRO, you have both, colour and B&W, if you wish! The ISO 400 SCANFILM film should available as 35mm and 120 roll film by end of October to all photographers. The un-masked CN film will processed regular in C41. You can also print B&W from it, with just regular B&W paper! The ROLLEI SCANFILM CN 400 PRO, can also be scanned perfectly, because he has no orange masking. The new SCANFILM is coming out from a military source, and is still in use as an perfect arial film! Try him out, you will be really surprised!

 

Regards

[gaius1]

I think Ilford XP2 Super would do for this purpose - it is not very "grainy" (being C41 it's dye not grains anyway) and it controls contrast well. For traditional B&W, you won't go far wrong with FP4+. Personally I avoid Delta for portraits - midtones are too compressed.

[chris_waller]

I use Delta 100, rating in at 50 ASA. I dev in Rodinal and can enlarge up to 16x12 with no significant grain, but if fine grain is important then try ID11 or D76.

[StuartMoxham]

FP4 or PanF in D76 1:1 will give nice prints. D70 1:0 will give finer grain so may be better for the print size you want. Have you thought about using 120 film and picking up used TLR. With the bigger film you will get better tonality and less visible grain in the prints.

[larrydressler]

LF and MF is the best but if you have to use 35mm I just got a Mamyia 220 for almost nothing with 3 lens sets .. as for almost Nothing I mean under $200.00

 

Larry

[ricardovaste]

Thanks for all the quick and detailed responces. Maybe sending the film(s) to be developed was a bad idea then. I have the facilities but just didnt want it to go wrong. It seems the best option would be to do a couple of test films first and then things should be fine. The only thing is if they want the pictures over 10" x 8" (which i think is likely) i will have to send them away to be printed bigger. But ive been told they use the latest ilford multigrade paper (MG4?) (with over 20 years of b&w experience).

 

I only have ID-11 (D76?) but i see this has been mentioned quite a lot. The combination that seems to be mentioned quite a lot is FP4/Pan F in D76 at 1:1. I have a couple of rolls of Pan F in the fridge that have just been sitting there so i suppose i could try them but they may be too slow to get sharp results from. So i may be tempted to get some FP4 and try and get soem good results from that.

 

I realise the a different format would bring greater results but i really have next to nothing to spend. Though my dad is looking into maybe a 4x6 camera and is also supprised at the prices. To try and get the best results from 35mm i will be used a minolta af 100mm f/2.8 macro lens which is meant to be decent (i havent really tested it myself yet).

 

Is FP4 as hard to develope as films such as T-Max 100 (which i hear can be tricky). I tried it once (FP4) and the results were pretty bad, but I hope thats just because i had to guess the temperature of everything because the thermometer broke 8-|

 

Are flash results not influenced by the film in B&W then?

 

Thanks for all the input again,

Richard

[gene_e._mccluney]

ID-11 is identical to D-76. Flash is just one method of lighting a scene. If you are using

flash (strobe) into a soft box or umbrella (as you should for portraits) then your light will

be flattering to human faces. The film doesn't care if it is flash, or sunlight, or

photofloods, if it is b/w. What is more important is the "softness" of the light, and the

more "soft" and "broad" the light source, the more flattering to the human face.

 

It is a very rare commercial lab that will develop b/w fillm to a customers specifications.

You are much better off developing the film yourself. Most labs standardize on a specific

developer that meets their needs, such as low pollution, long tank life, etc., which are not

necessarily the criteria you would be looking for such as long tonal scale, low grain.

[gaius1]

<blockquote>The film doesn't care if it is flash, or sunlight, or photofloods, if it is b/w.</blockquote>That is true, since those three sources you mention all have the same colour temperature - but even B&W film will react differently to tungsten light than it will flash. In fact, it will react differently to midday sun and sunset.

[rich_ullsmith1]

I have not had much success with T-grain films and skin tones. I don't do enough portraiture to have it figured out, some folks have, but seems like HP5+ or FP4+ are more forgiving in this respect.

[keith_tapscott]

Photographers were making excellent B&W portraits from 35mm of around this size back in the 1950`s, film technology has improved radically since the says of Ilford FP3 and Selochrome Pan.

You should be able to get superb quality prints from 35mm with films like T-Max 100, Delta 100 and 100 Acros that would be hard to tell apart from medium format.

The use of fill-in flash can be useful for backlit subject to control contrast. Shoot a practice roll normally and send it to your lab to see how it turns out before commiting yourself to an important subject.

[ricardovaste]

Once again id like to thank everyone for their input - its been great to here from people with lots of experience.

 

I was just reading up on "The Half-Tone Effect" (from the book "Quality in Photography" by Roger Hicks & Frances Schultz) and it seems that this can become visible at 4x enlargment. Im not sure what enlargment size/range this is talking about but i know that i want to try and avoid the 'half-tone' effect as much as possible and that its more of an issue with 35mm...

 

...Could someone tell me if im likely to see the half-tone effect at 10" x 8" with FP4+? If so, i'll wont get any FP4+ (for now) and ill just try out th Pan F that i have in the fridge.

 

Thanks again,

Richard

 

p.s. Anyone familiar with the referenced book? Its an iteresting read, for me.

[jay_de_fehr]

I'm with Keith. 10x12 isn't such a stretch for 35mm with these modern, designer grain films. Of the bunch, I prefer Acros, but they're all very capable.

 

Jay

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

"I'm feel compelled to say that I think a 10x12 print from a 35mm negative is a bit too large for a truly high quality print"

 

At 11x14 FP4+ is GRAINLESS from a typical viewing distance.

[gaius1]

In a portrait, I'd be willing to trade some grain for better tonality. Grainlessness isn't everything. That is why many people don't like Delta 100 for portraits and why Plus-X and FP4+ are popular.

[ricardovaste]

Just to let you know the discussion on the half tone effect was moved to a seperate thread http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IYRB&tag=

 

thanks for all the input

[frank.schifano]

Dan, I agree with you about FP4+ being virtually grainless at normal viewing distances. If the viewing light isn't that great, it's even more true. However, there are other things to consider. Tonality and sharpness suffer at increased enlargement ratios as well, though these factors are pretty well tied to grain size. More importantly, small dust specks, emulsion defects, lens abberations, blur from camera shake, etc., all start becoming noticeable at high enlargement ratios. Grain is the least of the problems you face when making a large print from a small negative.

[jay_de_fehr]

Ahhh, tonality. It's the magic word, isn't it? Anyone can claim superior tonality for anything, and who can argue? Rodinal fans are very fond of the term. Whenever someone cites tonality as a justification for choosing one film/developer over another, I take that to mean they have no quantifiable basis for their preferrence, and so their opinion is meaningless in the absence of examples. The notion that designer grain films compare poorly to old technology films in terms of tonality is a phenomenon more closely related to the biases of the observer than the characteristics of the materials. The only determining factor less reliable than tonality, is a third party's estimation of tonality. Good luck with your project.

 

Jay