Best B&W film.

[serge_kakorin]

This is the question for those of you who still works with B&W film. I plan a couple of projects, where I will need to

use B&W film. It will be studio shoot, in all kinds of lighting. We'll be doing some pretty big enlargements afterwards.

So I figured we'll need some ultrafine grain films, which will be able to render the tone very well too. Thanks for your

help.

[bob_sunley]

Well if you are using 35mm or smaller film, really big enlargements are out of the question, but if you go with 11"x14" film you will get the fine grain and large prints if your equipment and processes are up to it. I'm sure Ilford have a product you can use.

 

Note, your question is so generic, there is no real answer for it.

[Fotohuis RoVo]

Well slow speed iso 25 films like Efke 25 or Rollei PAN 25 or extreme high resolution with the new Rollei ATP 1.1 Tech Pan film (ISO 20-32).

[serge_kakorin]

I should have said this right away. We'll be using 6x6cm square format camera.

[Fotohuis RoVo]

Well, all above films are also available in 120 roll film format, the Tech Pan film up from September 2008, after the German Photokina in Cologne.

[bgelfand]

Ilford Pan F+ would be a good film to consider.

[RobertChura]

How big are the enlargements? What are your expectations of quality. If I was concerned about ultimate quality I would use the largest film size I could get which would be renting an 8x10 camera.

[serge_kakorin]

Thank you all for your input. I'll make it more cpecific. I shoot digital all the time. I am very interested in doing B&W studio portraits. So I need to see what film can do. I will be using either of both H1 and/or Yashica Mat 124 tlr tocompare lower end and higher end cameras and lenses. As far as enlargements, I understan that I can not expect 8x10" negative quality from 6x6cm negative, so it'll be in 11x14 to 16x20 to 20x30 range of sizes, just to see the real prints in life. I am not a professional or even experienced amateur, I am just starting, and until recently my biggest prints were 5x7 and I kept my photos on hard drive. But on my daughters birthday, we printed one of her portraits in 16x20, framed it and put it on the wall. It was printed at 72dpi from 40D file. Even this quality of print surprised all the guests at the birthday party. They started asking me if I can do the same for them. I am not sure if I will go there yet. I want to see what 6x6 format can do. I looked at Fuji and Illfrod films. Maybe you experienced folks can compare these. For example, how Neopan 100 Acros compares to Pan F+ or XP2 or FP4 or Delta100?

I appreciate you sharing your expertise. It looks like there are not too many people left who really knows about film these days.

Thank you all for your comments.

[jay_de_fehr]

Hi Sergey,

 

If light is not an issue, I would recommend Fuji Acros; I think it's the best of the fine grain films overall, but all the films you

note are excellent, top tier films. If you're not processing your own film, you might consider asking your lab for a

recommendation, because familiarity is likely to be as important as any other factor. For example, if your lab regularly

developes FP4+, but has never seen a roll of Acros, FP4+ will probably deliver better results for you than Acros, with its

learning curve for the lab. As an aside, print quality is probably not of primary importance to the people who admired your

portrait work, but the more intangiable aspects, like lighting and your rapport with your subject. Good luck, and have fun!

[ric_johnson1]

First, if are still thousands and thousands of people who know and use film. You should be able to print up to almost any size print you want from a 6x6 negative.

[bob_sunley]

Yes the problem is your lack of knowledge and experience. I see the words "very large enlargements", and assume a minimum of 36" on the short edge, not 16x20 or smaller that I do in my own darkroom.

 

Acros 100 in 35mm format with a tripod in a studio will get you some pretty decent 16x20 enlargements. On 6x6 negatives, it's all you will ever need. :)

 

16x20 from a 6x6 negative is only a 10x enlargement, you can easily use 400 asa film for that.

 

Have fun and welcome to the "dark side".

[serge_kakorin]

Thanks, Bob. 36" on the short edge? Do you think it will yeld a good quality print at this size. We are talking about 36x40 or so from 6x6, am I correct?

[buzz]

Why do you need ultrafine grain??

 

I take B&W portraits all the time w.6x7 format. My recommendation it TXP320. It has a great tonality, its really designed to use in controlled lighting. You can make enlargements 20 x 30.

I've dev. it in D-76, HC-110, and XTOL all with great results.

[glenn_mabbutt]

"For example, how Neopan 100 Acros compares to Pan F+ or XP2 or FP4 or Delta100?"

 

Short answer: they're all good, try a roll of each in similar conditions and see what you like (this will also test your lab and see what they're good at developing/printing - it can be more art than science with some film/developer combinations).

 

Longer answer: I have little experience with it, but from what I've read the Acros is supposed to have reduced red sensitivity - it's still red-sensitive, just less so than other films. Otherwise, I have some experience with XP2 - I quite like it for people pictures. Being a "chromagenic" film it's using dyes instead of silver grain in the final output (like colour film), so you end up with a "creamier" pic than traditional films with grain (although if you underexpose it will get "grainy" on you). I also think it (and it's cousin Kodak BW400CN - although finding this one in 120 format can be a bit tough) looks good when exposed to quite a bit of light (eg, a close flash) - although I'm told technically speaking both XP2 and BW400CN have less dynamic range than traditional B&W films.

[bob_sunley]

Sergey Kakorin , Aug 13, 2008; 05:05 p.m. wrote:

 

"Thanks, Bob. 36" on the short edge? Do you think it will yeld a good quality print at this size. We are talking about 36x40 or so from 6x6, am I correct?"

 

Yes you can push a 6x6cm negative to a 36 inch square print, that is about 18x magnification, and for that you would want a good lens forming the image, and for the difference in film cost compared to the cost of a print, you might as well shoot 4x5" film. Now finding a lab to do it might be a bit difficult. Having just had a look at Ilford's current stock, rolls of paper 106 or 127cm wide appear to be readily available.

 

Don't worry, a well done 16x20 or 20x24 inch print from a 6x6cm negative will blow your socks off. :)

[bgelfand]

Hi Sergey,

 

You asked, "For example, how Neopan 100 Acros compares to Pan F+ or XP2 or FP4 or Delta100?"

 

They say "a picture is worth 100 words. " <grin> So...

 

Pan F+ developed in Ilfotec-DD http://www.photo.net/photo/1421752

 

Pan F+ developed in Rodinal http://www.photo.net/photo/3712092

 

Fuji ACROS 100 developed in Ilfotec-DDX http://www.photo.net/photo/7223868

 

Ilford Delta 100 developed in Ilfotec-DDX http://www.photo.net/photo/7223868

 

Ilford Delta 100 developed in D76 1+1 http://www.photo.net/photo/3973455

 

Ilford Delta 100 developed in Perceptol 1+3 http://www.photo.net/photo/3205774

 

Kodak T-Max 100 developed in Ilfotec-DD http://www.photo.net/photo/2550730

 

The above are all scan of cropped 8x10 prints made from 35mm negatives.

 

For 120 (6x6)

 

Kodak T-Max 100 developed in D76? http://www.photo.net/photo/1115004

 

Ilford Pan F+ developed in Perceptol 1+3 http://www.photo.net/photo/2994223 (I am not happy with that combination. I recommend you stick to either Ilfotec-DDX or Rodinal).

 

Once again these are scans of cropped 8x10 prints.

 

So there you have it in a short 9,000 word equivalent message. <grin>

[michael_best2]

Over the years I have used mainly Kodak films, plus x pan, verichrome way back when, tri x, panatomic x, and a number of Ilford and agfa

films developed in any variety of developers, in 35mm, 6x6, and 6x7. Unless I am doing a special project, I now use tri x 400, developed in

d76 1:1, and regularly print 16x20 and 20x24 with little or no apparent grain, from a 6x7 neg.

 

Mike Best

[User_502260]

If you want the finest grain you can contact Film For Classics. They should have Kodak Imagelink HQ or FS film in 120 size. Imagelink has much finer grain than TMX or any of the other 100 speed films. It also has much finer grain than Pan F+. If Technical Pan were still available you could use that. Even with fine grain film if your scans are not done at a high enough resolution you will see very little benefit in using medium format film. The other issue is your format. If you are making standar size rectangular prints with a 6X6 negative then you are only using a piece of the negative approximately 6X45 in size. A 6X7 negative will give you a lot more to work with if you are going above 11X14.

[john_castronovo]

bob sunley ediced:

Don't worry, a well done 16x20 or 20x24 inch print from a 6x6cm negative will blow your socks off. :)

 

--------------

 

Without a doubt. A good 6x6 neg should produce a 24 inch print or much larger without any trouble whatsoever so long as it's a subject that tolerates some grain. Some subjects, like commercial advertising shots of plastic or polished metal objects like machinery or jewelry, look awful with any grain showing whatsoever and for these only large format sheet film or high resolution digital will do. In our studio, back in the day when it mattered, we shot all products on 8x10 sheet film, even if the final was only going to print up to 16x20.

[thomas_widmer]

Hi Sergey

 

Neopan Acros 100 is a good starting point. No problem do 20 x 30 prints.

 

Here 2 fuji neopan acros 100 examples:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/slow-photo/sets/72157606614536774/

 

Cheers,

Thomas

[serge_kakorin]

Thanks to all of you who contributed your time. Lots of good ideas. I appreciate your help. Right now I work on the old

stock of Delta 400, given to me by my friend. He was professional wedding and portrait photographer, but had to change his

career some time ago. I also got studio lighting equipment from him, so I have a lot of stuff to experiment with. I have a

question about prints. Just curious. How do you make big prints these days? Do you scan and print or print live using an

enlarger? How do the results compare, if someone used both processes?