Getting Serious with B&W Photography

[pete_c1]

I've been shooting DSLR for quite some time now and have found a life-long passion in photography.

Earlier this year, I inherited my father-in-law's 40? year old Nikon F2 with 3 lenses: 50mm, 105mm, and

135mm. I then got myself 2 rolls of Kodak Gold, so I could learn how to use the camera. Seeing the final

prints done by a local Kodak lab didn't really create an impression and I guess this could be largely due to

user inexperience. A sales clerk in the same lab though recommended that I try the BW400CN and so I

did. I'm not sure what I did right this time but was stunned when I saw the prints! Great contrast and

sharpness! I'm biased towards low-key when shooting digital b&w portraits but have found that the

images tend to lose some detail. But with this film, I got a lot more detail than I'm used to!

 

To cut a long story short, I just grabbed 2 more rolls of the BW400 and can't wait to learn more about b&w

film photography. My question is, is there anything I would need to get the most out of b&w film? I've

read in some forums about the need to use yellow or orange filters to create more contrast. Do I need to

invest in filters this early? I generally take portraits, again mostly low-key, but occasionally dabble in

landscape and urbanscape. Is there a better b&w out there in the price range of the BW400CN? It sells

here for around $6/36 exposures.

 

Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

 

Pete

[smeitner300]

Hi Pete,

 

It is great to hear your passion for photography. As you have noticed, prints from a local lab (unless professional) can leave much to be desired. The problem is, the local lab scans and automatically adjusts your negatives for exposure before printing them.

 

If you feel you would like to still dabble in color, I found that when I switched to slide film, my skills increased dramatically. The exposure is much more critical with slide film rather than negative film. In addition, what you see is what you get. There is no adjustments made before you get them back. Inspecting them with a loop (or a 50mm lens turned around) instantly revealed if I was off in exposure. The downside of course is cost. Slide film costs me about $4.50/36 exp roll and development is $8. Just a thought.

 

There are many B&W films around the $6/36 exp. The catch is that they are mostly true B&W and not C41 type film that any local lab can process. This also means they probably will have more grain than what you're used to. If you're looking for grain free negatives, BW400CN is pretty good. Also check into Ilford XP2. I took the plunge and bought a Patterson kit to do my own developing. It wasn't a huge step. Traditional B&W films are easy to develop and doing it myself saves me money.

 

As for filters, you said you generally take portraits. You will find that certain filters can be more flattering to your subjects. Try a yellow or orange filter to hide blemishes, or a green one to make a rugged appearance stand out. One bit of advice is to think about what thread size you'll use. It is usually more economical to buy filters in the thread size of your largest diameter lens, and then use step up rings to make the filters fit your other lenses. A step up ring is usually under $10, while some filters can easily top $50.

 

Happy shooting,

Steve

[john_gleason1]

"my father-in-law's 40? year old Nikon F2 with 3 lenses: 50mm, 105mm, and 135mm"

 

Apporoaching 40, maybe. The F2 was produced from 1970 through 1980. A great camera, and the 105mm is a pearl.

[jtk]

Do you plan soon to do your own film processing and enlarging or scanning?

 

People who are seriously into B&W 35mm rarely think grain is undesirable...many enjoy it. Many actively dislike C41 "B&W" partially because it often seems less sharp than silver B&W and partially because it forces most users to rely on minilabs for processing, a real handicap.

[chris_waller]

Process your own b+w film; that way you have control. Ditto printing. Get to know a couple of films and a developer really well, then proceed from there.

[raczoliver]

The BW400CN, along with Ilford's XP-2, are considered a little special among black and white films, since they are not processed the traditional way, but in the same chemicals as color negatives. If you do not want to develop your own negatives, use these films, and it will be less likely that the lab screws up. However, you'll be missing out on a lot. You'll have much more control if you use a traditional black and white film and process it yourself. Sounds scary at first, but it's really easier than cooking.

 

I think faster films are more forgiving than slower ones. For beginning, I'd start with Ilford HP5 plus, or some other equivalent (many here love Kodak Tri-X, but I do not have first hand experience with it). If you like slow films, FP4 plus is excellent.

[keith_lubow]

You now have, IMO, one of the best cameras ever made. Don't ever get rid of it. You have the perfect tool to start doing what you want to do, and get pretty far with it. Then, if you really really love it and stick with it, you will probably hit the format's limitations and want to move to large format some day. But for now, don't let go of that beautiful camera. It's all the tool you need to learn all the basic knowledge you need to know.

 

Please learn to process and print traditionally. Nothing is as rewarding to me as making my own physical print from a physical emulsion. The more people who actually stop being lazy and do it, and continue doing it, the longer the stuff will keep being made. Materials are disappearing left and right, and it will all be gone some day (perhaps even in my lifetime, although doubtful). Get it while the getting's good.

 

The monochrome film you are using is actually a color film sans dye. It's three layers of black and white emulsion. The traditional b/w films are only one layer. While the C-41 b/w film can look very beautiful, I would venture to guess that you will appreciate a classic b/w film a lot more over all. Something like FP4 and HP5 are good all-purpose films on which to learn (or Plus-X and Tri-X, which are the Kodak equivalents). The faster film will require a tighter technique for sharp pictures, but has a much wider tonal palette and more exposure latitude. The slower, contrastier films are more demanding on technical proficiency and cut out a lot of grey tones that you will get with a faster film. Everything is a balance. You will learn to pick the one that will suit your desired result.

 

Keith

[john_elder1]

Great camera and rare in that the finder is 100%. One of the best cameras ever made and a great workhorse. Take the next step, process your own film. You don't need a darkroom. Good luck! PS I also recieved an F2 from my father.

[gwebster]

Hi Pete

 

Congratulations on your BW epiphany and welcome to the film club! John is absolutely right - you don't need a darkroom. I live in a rented city apartment and I develop all my own B&W in the kitchen (with the lights on), dry it in the bathroom and then scan it with my trusty Nikon Coolscan V. If you take a look at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Mn81">this post</a> here, you can see a description and a picture of my complete setup that contains basically all you need to do B&W. Somebody in that thread also rightly pointed out that you can save money even further by buying a lot of the hardware (spools, tanks etc) secondhand.

<p>

Enjoy!

[robert lee]

"My question is, is there anything I would need to get the most out of b&w film?"

 

Oh, yes: develop and print yourself. This is entirely about maintaining technical control of your image from start to finish.

 

Developing traditional B&W is simplicity in itself, and cheap. Google the "zone system" for why you want to do this.

 

As for printing, you'll likely get better results faster using a scanner rather than a traditional wet darkroom. Get a Nikon V for 35mm (and any cheap flatbed will be usable for the larger film formats.) Prints from a B&W specific inkjet can be absolutely spectacular.

 

"Is there a better b&w out there in the price range of the BW400CN?"

 

I'm rather partial to Fuji Acros. About $3.50 per 36 exposures I think.

[jobo1]

Let me go against the grain here, and suggest that if you like what you get out of the Kodak, you should stick with it for a while. Its advantages are (IMO): Great exposure latitude, standardized processing and a minimum of effort beyond taking the pictures. If you like what your lab does with it, and you can afford it, I don't see a reason to switch right now. Do you?

 

I would, on the other hand, think about trying out some colored filters - take the same picture with and without, and compare.

[rsmall]

Pete, congrats on the Nikon. As stated many time above, you have a piece of photography history in your posession, enjoy it and use it to its fullest potential. I reccomend Tri-X and HC-110 developer combo for great results! Also, Having been active in this great art for 45 years, and developing and printing my own film I can say I have never had a 'dedicated' darkroom, but I have been able to successfully produce thousands of B&W prints for personal use and commercial venues. AKA; use what you have and enjoy yourself!

[glenn_mabbutt]

The first thing I would do is get your F2 "CLA'd" (cleaned, lubricated, and adjusted). I've started collecting and using a variety of cameras in the last couple of years myself, and one of the easiest things I've found that improves handling/performance in a slightly older camera is getting a CLA by a competent repair person.

 

If you need suggestions, post the general area where you are, and likely someone here has a suggestion. For example, the mirror foam in SLRs tends to degrade over time, but is easily replaceable with new foam-rubber, which usually results in a quieter "mirror slap".

 

As for b&w, I like BW400CN as well. I've found that Ilford XP2 is also good, but a lot of commercial places have trouble printing/scanning it, as it has a clear base with a slight tint (as opposed to most colour films that have an orange base).

 

I would suggest picking up a variety of whatever traditional films are available in your area as well, and trying them out - you can usually find one place locally that can process them, or there are a variety of send-away services to do that before you go out and get your own equipment. Kodak Tri-X and Ilford HP5+ are "standard" B&W films, generally rated at 400 ISO (but with b&w you can push/pull that quite easily). If you're going to be in bright conditions, Kodak Plus-X and Ilford FP4+ are slower films for that purpose. There are a variety of faster films as well, so you'll just have to play with them :)

[richard_mcleish]

Just wanted to join the club in saying never get rid of that Nikon. As far as the 105mm lens is concerned, no one has ever made a better portrait lens.

[gnashings]

You're impressed with 1 hour lab prints from a C41 B&W film? Wow - wait until you get your hands on some real B&W prints, on real B&W paper - you will be blown away.

I guarantee you the prints you got are mud by comparison (through no fault of yours and no fault of the film). And that camera is a classic, not to mention the lenses, especially the legendary 105 (and I am a Canon guy!). Keep it, it will serve you well for another few decades. You will be able to take some photos of your dSLR when it bites the dust:)

Jokes aside, I shoot mainly traditional B&W emulsions (not ones you develop in colour chemicals), and I am partial to them, in large part due to the fact that I process my own film and do the printing myself - it simply gives me more options and frankly, I just like it better. Please don't take it as my biased nature coming out, but do yourself a favor and get a roll of TriX or FP4+, and (I don't know how - prhaps someone in your area will offer to help) get a real print made - you owe it to yourself.

[robert lee]

"Just wanted to join the club in saying never get rid of that Nikon."

 

Ahh, a slippery slope that. This is how I ended up with a closet full of film gear.

 

So Pete, let me give you a bit more of a nudge down that gradient. You really owe it to yourself to look at medium format equipment. You won't believe how much better the image quality is from a $200 6x7 SLR than the best 35mm camera and optics.

[mark_l3]

"You won't believe how much better the image quality is from a $200 6x7 SLR than the best 35mm camera and optics."

 

hell yeah!

[pete_c1]

All the responses, which I should say were surprisingly positive and encouraging for a

beginner, are much appreciated. Other forums are not as kind.

 

I will stick it out with the c-41 b&w film for the meantime just because I still have 2 rolls to

finish and it might take a while before I dare venture into processing at home or moving to

medium format. A trip to the photo store will be first order tomorrow to see what color

filters I can get my hands on.

 

Seeing how great the F2 and 105 are, I'm now struggling to recall if my father-in-law said

he was giving it or just lending it...

 

Again, thanks.

 

Pete

[smeitner300]

The old saying goes, "possession is 9/10 of the law"...

;)

[nige_buddy]

part payment for having to put up with his daughter? :)

[gnashings]

Please don't take my comments about the C41 film results as damning to the film - I just have little faith in minilabs and the results have always been very underwhelming. What I was trying to say is that your results are probably much better than the minilab prints would show.

As to the filters - check the infamous auction site, you can get a LOT of filters for less than one would cost you at a store. Some are crap, but quite often you get great brands. I would suggest getting a yellow, orange and red filters, as well as a polarizer. That is a good start, and will serve you very well in just about 99% of situations.

[tim gray]

I enjoy shooting a roll of BW400CN every once in a while. It's kind of nice just to drop it

off at Target and have it dev'd and scanned. Then at my leisure, I can rescan the keepers.

It does have a very distinctive smooth look that is nice sometimes.

 

I've shot a couple rolls of XP2 as well, and while it does print traditionally easier, I just

stick with BW400CN since its easier to find locally.

 

Other than that, I second what a lot of people have said. If you get into it, get a couple

reels, a dev tank, a changing bag, and some chems, and dev your own traditional BW film

like Tri-X. It's awesome. It ends up being cheaper too.

 

Also, a nice Nikon neg scanner will really bring out the most of your negs.

 

Keep shooting!

[steve_muntz]

I have used various versions of Kodak's C41 black and white films and had great luck scanning them. However, they didn't have that "classic" sort of look I was after and eventually started developing my own Tri-X in D-76. With a little patience, you can find most of the gear already mentioned (I have a similar setup for darkroom-free developing and scanning) for a very small investment. It's not hard, and gives you a lot of options - plus it's fun and saves money.

 

There was a local camera store that did a great job with printing the BW400CN type films, but I think they've changed their process. Haven't tried it in a few years but some mini-labs will try to print these as color pictures, resulting in a b&w picture with a color cast to it.

[ckp]

Surprised no one has said it this strongly, but BW 400 is a very poor imitation of black and white. Although they have come a long way since Ilford XP1, C-41 process black and white films were created for the convenience of the photolab to increase sales and keep outlab orders down. It has a nasty emulsion which doesn't respond well to varied processing or the filters you're wanting to invest in. If you're serious about black and white images try a real film such as Tri-X. It's cheaper than the C-41 and pretty forgiving. You may have to send it out for developing at first but as the previous poster suggests, you will probably end up developing it yourself later for more control. Something else you probably don't want to hear is that printing black and white on color paper or ink jet should be illegal and punished. You really have to print on a real black and white paper for full effect. Black and white films, papers and chemistry have been designed over time to work together. If you go through these pains you will get images that make the BW400 ones look soft and muddy. You will also gain full control of shadow/highlight detail. Btw, you've also touched on the fact that print film has more exposure latitude than digital. This is where your detail is coming from. Good luck and I hope to hear that you've become a black and white snob (thumps computer screen and heads to the darkroom).

[brucecahn]

Regarding filters, I would suggest avoiding them at the beginning. Get them only if and when you find them necessary. I have a personal prejudice against filters. I used one once only. It gave fake drama to an already good picture (B&W). There are times when filters help. In B&W they are sometimes helpful in distinguishing tones. I just have decided I prefer to see the picture unfiltered. Filters tend to degrade the image and make everone's work look alike. I agree with most of the guys above who praise the early Nikons. Prefer a Leica though. It is in a higher class, both for performance and feel.