oliver_kurzemann Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 if i look at some of my black and white prints (i can´t develop them at home) they seem to be too grey. not enough contrast. is there any special film for a hard contrast. i tried kodak t400 cn and ilford, also agfa scala which is a film i really like but it´s a slide film and very expensive. or do i have to use yellow or red filters ? i like the style of mike dixons documentary shots. any advise ? <p> thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpablo Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 I too am a fan of contrasty film. In general, the higher the speed the more the contrast. However, some photographers fear an increase in grain as a result of a faster film (more circles of confusion). I would recommend shooting Fuji Neopan 1600 film. It is a beautiful and contrasty film that retains a fine grain. It is best shot with more even lighting. Try this in the morning hours of the day or the last few before the sunset. Unfortunately due to it's speed and contrast, it is not the best for super sunny days yet is amazing in overcast days. One might assume that an overcast day would produce images with less contrast, however with the 800 speed it helps produce contrast on overcast or more evenly lit days resulting in some amazing prints. Try keeping to a 5.6/8 on the entire roll and have a lab develop for proof sheets only. Keep in mind, printing is where most black and white photography is created. Printing on cooler toned papers or using contrast filters (3 or higher) can also give you a beautiful and contrastry print with the "snap" that the better photographers get. In addition, you mentioned a yellow (15) and a red (25) filter. These too can give great contrast (that extral punch) to otherwise flat negs. Again, stick with the 800 or 1600 speed film b/c you'll need the speed for the stop compensation. That is, if you were outside and had a red filter on you'd lose 2 2/3 stops. So, in order to stay within the 5.6/8 range you'll need a 1600 speed film. Keep in mind my comment about shooting in bright light. Again, once you start adding filters (contrast) you'll not want to be in the brightest places b/c the spectrum will be reduced producing pics that are much to bright in certain spots and much too dark. I hope some of this was of help to you. I shoot a Leica M6 and only shoot b&w film. I have been printing for 10 years and consider myself a "st Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_chan2 Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 You can specify the lab to "push process" your film by 1 stop or more. That should increase the contrast at the expense of your tonal range and fine-graininess. If you did your own developing you can also use a high accutance developer like Rodinal (just be careful with the agitation) to get a good edge definition or dilute your developer down and accept a higher developing time. Really, I don't like to shoot chromogenic B&W. The film substrate is softer than silver halide B&W after hardening and the grain structure isn't the same. But to-each-his-own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giles_poilu Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 Oliver, by far the most important factor here is printing. Quite simply ANY b+w film can provide more contrast than you will ever need - provided it is well printed. It is really essential with b+w to either print your own or find a decent pro lab who understands your requirements. <p> Chromogenic or conventional - the local 1 hour lab or magazine cowboy will do your pictures no justice. <p> For the price of 15 printed films you can set up a darkroom in a tiny space and rival pro-labs with a bit of practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_woodcock Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 Giles is right, that's why I dug out all my old darkroom kit. I run a small photo lab and now matter how hard I try colour printing a b&w neg (silver or chromgenic) it looks crap! darkroom kit is cheap and it doesn't have to be permanent too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 Oliver, I've found Kodak T-Max 400 cn to generally be somewhat flat in intial contrast. That said, anything can be punched up in the darkroom ( well, almost anything ). Choice of paper, filteration, even Selenium Toner can help add snap. Unless you're looking for a special effect or want to emphasize/correct sky, trees, or skin tone, go for the best pure neg. and "do it in the darkroom". That way you always have the neg to go back to. Hope this is of some small help. Marc Williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilhelmn Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 Developing is easy. Printing 36 negatives even as small, proof quality will exhaust most of us. Contact sheet isn't really satisfactory for critical evaulation. Suggest you have the negatives scanned and look at them on your computer before deciding on final printing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph_barker Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 It strikes me that the real core of your question is whether the prints are just bad, or if your existing negatives are poorly exposed and developed. <p> Contrast is first a matter of lighting, then of exposure/development of the film, then of printing. A bad print of a superb negative will always be disappointing. If you are shooting subjects with reasonably contrasty lighting, compare your negatives to the "normal" looking negs in the Kodak books. If your negs show good contrast, the problem is likely the prints. If you are using a "drugstore" lab, ask if you can request better processing. Contrasty scenes will often fool the auto-exposure features of the machine, resulting in muddy-looking prints. If the lab can't print with reasonable contrast, with real blacks and whites in the image, your choice is to use a custom lab or do it yourself. Almost any conventional B&W film can produce good contrast if properly exposed, developed, and printed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonid Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 Kodak's tech pan ( iso 25 ) has very nice contrast . It's pretty expensive ( at least $7) though . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_horn Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 Oliver- I haven't submitted B&W to a local processor in years. Last time I tried, the results were atrocious! I tried the C-41 process stuff and it was sick looking. (From the local Wal-Mart, which has a 1-hr machine photo service.) Now, sending it to a custom printer, that's another story! But it will cost you! I think the topic of developing and printing B&W needs more input on this forum. Does anyone know anything about the PhotoTherm Super Sidekick? It processes slides, color negs & B&W. It does not require a darkroom, plumbing, tempered water or long warm-up times. The unit measures and heats one solution at a time, so you can process slides at 100 deg F, then after a short automatic clean-up, process B&W film at 75 deg F. PhotoTherm has a website at www.phototherm.com Now, get those flamethrowers ready! Does digital do B&W? I don't have any digital stuff, so I don't know. Can it replace slides? Does digital know the difference between a 50mm Summicron-M and some plastic Michelemousee lens? They're trying to turn our Noctiluxes into paperweights, so we need to know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliver_kurzemann Posted March 5, 2002 Author Share Posted March 5, 2002 hello ralph <p> i was the guy who asked the question. well i´m an amateur photographer who wants to learn as much as possible about photography. therefore a professional photographer helps me quite a lot, but when i ask him about film he never gives me a specifik answer. i shoot a lot with a canon eos 3 and various canon lenses when i need to (motordrive), but i also own a leica r6.2 with a elmarit r 2.8/28 lens which i like a lot more than the canon gear. i know how to get the right exposure for a picture, but i miss this extra thing (sorry, don´t know how to say in english, i´m austrian) in the photos. maybe i try to change the photo lab and see if i get better results. by the way i´d like to say thank you to all the people who responded so quick and gave me hints. as i said before i wanna learn as much as possible about photography and this forum helps me a lot. <p> thanks again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phy1 Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 Oliver <p> IMHO the only way to get good quality B/W image is to develop the film yourself. Develop B/W film does not require any darkroom facility and it very handed and simple. In addition, you can control the contrast by the developing time, temp and chemical density. It is fun to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark-j Posted March 6, 2002 Share Posted March 6, 2002 Oliver <p> I am not a professional, but have been shooting for 30+ years. It sounds like your exposure is off if the pictures appear gray. Try shooting a roll of slide film to check out your metering techniques. If your slides are off, then then your B&W is probably off too. Processing film is fairly easy, but not everyone wants to try it. <p> Slide film has less exposure latitude than print films, including B&W, hence using slide film for checking your metering. Your meter may be accurate, but your technique may not agree with how the meter reads the scene. <p> Good luck, and keep trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted March 6, 2002 Share Posted March 6, 2002 Thanks for compliment. For ultimate control, you need to do your own developing and printing. But if you're unwilling or unable to do that, here are some ways to get more contrast (other than changing the lighting): <p> Use slower speed films--these have more inherent contrast. Ilford PanF+ exposed and developed normally has about as much contrast HP5+ underexposed and pushed one stop. <p> Overexpose the film slightly (this also increases grain) and develop normally. <p> Expose the film normally and push by half a stop. <p> [i do all my own b&w developing and printing, so I spend an unhealthy amount of time in the darkroom.] <p> Shot below was PanF+ exposed at EI 80 and pushed one stop, then printed at grade 2.5 (on the real print, there's visible detail in her hair and coat--just ask Jack!): <p> <img src="http://mikedixonphotography.com/alexbw28.jpg"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reinier_de_vlaam Posted March 6, 2002 Share Posted March 6, 2002 Hi Oliver, <p> I know the problem you have. It seems to me that my pictures in someway just miss the power other pictures have. I get als sorts of complements on the content but lots of comments on the print itself. I normally use Tmax 400 and have plans to develop it (in D76) at a bit higher temperature (20C->22C) with the same time (12min), to increase contrast. I once had a Tmax400 film underexposed at EI 100, so I pushed it in 23C for 16min. The result was pictures with excellent contrast. It will take some more expirimenting though. <p> I used neopan 1600 for some portraits in low light (I don't have studio lights, nor softbox). Have a look here. I'm stunned at the quality of the grain <p> http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=426947 <p> (PS you may wish to set your monitor darker. The background of the girl hanging backwards should be black. And the contrast of the prints is much better than is visible on your screen, commets are appreciated ;-)) <p> I will be in Istanbul for a long weekend and plan to use neopan 1600 for street shots at night. I will develop it in d76 for 15min to push it to 3200). In the same place as above you'll find the Stockholm folder where I used Tmax3200 which has a really disapointing crude grain. <p> cheers Reinier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntonioC Posted March 6, 2002 Share Posted March 6, 2002 Really, printing by yourself would yeld much better results than any 1-hr lab. In any case, my suggestion would be to use c-41 films (especially Ilford XP2-s), have them developed by any 1-hr lab (it's nearly impossible to screw up a c-41 neg, really) and then a) print it yourself, or b) have it printed through a Frontier machine, where you can have contrast easily under control. I think frontier is the best/fastest way to have real bw prints without a real pro lab, or a home darkroom. Which would be the best anyway...Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_piper2 Posted March 6, 2002 Share Posted March 6, 2002 1) Like Mike said..... <p> 2) "The negative is the score; the print is the performance" - Ansel Adams. If you're letting the folks at the local minilab play your music for you - well......There really is no substitute for handling your own images (whether by computer or traditional darkroom) <p> 3) Look into rental labs if you can't do your own developing at home... <p> 4) ...but I've always managed to set up SOME kind of darkroom everywhere I've lived for 15 years, from micro-cheap apartments to high-rise condos to houses <p> - collapsible tables in bathrooms - usually trays on/above the bathtub and the enlarger on/over the sink or -uhhh- OTHER plumbing fixtures. Black tape and/or black plastic covering doors, windows and other light leaks. Some places I could only print at night - but I always figured out a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted March 6, 2002 Share Posted March 6, 2002 "usually trays on/above the bathtub and the enlarger on/over the sink or -uhhh- OTHER plumbing fixtures." <p> Been there, done that! The commode makes an excellent enlarger stand! I used to, on occasion, go for a few days without a shower because I didn't want to move the trays out of the tub. When you ride up on a ragged motorcycle, stinking of B.O. and fixer, nobody dares to mess with you . . . : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_prager Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 Oliver, I find overexposing my film by 2/3 a stop helps increase contrast, as well as provide greater detail of the shadow areas. For example, I set my iso rating for Tri-x at 250 and have it processed at 400. Using a medium yellow filter also helps and I often do both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now