Which bl&w film for meterless M's? exposure latitude

[joop]

Hi, two weeks ago, I bought a M4.

Now i'm trying (to learn) to estimate the shuttertime/aperture

combination before i take out my meter.

Which bl-w film would you recommend which has a large exposure

latitude, so in case the shuttertime/aperture combination is not

optimal i could still make a decent print out of it?

 

Btw. the first thing i did with my M4 was shooting a roll of T400CN,

having it developed at the local store, i was quite dissapointed with

the results. The first bl-w prints i ever made, look better in terms

of contrast and exposure than what i got back from the store.

Is that also your experience with these C41 process films?

or have these films a smaller exposure latitude than other films/ and

did i not expose them correctly (the negs seem to look not so bad)

is it the process at my local store?

Thanks for advice, Joop

[mike dixon]

<i>Now i'm trying (to learn) to estimate the shuttertime/aperture combination before i take out my meter.</i><p>

It's much easier to learn proper exposures for different situations if you use your meter first. After a while, you become quite familiar with the appropriate setting for various lighting conditions, and the meter is no longer critical.<p>

HP5+ probalby has as much exposure latitude as any conventional b&w film.

[travis1]

btw, has anyone heard of the term "expose for the shadows, develop for the hightlights?" . How does one control the development of just the hightlights with respect to the shadows.

 

Is it true that the hightlights develop quicker than the shadows in the negs? Is that how the term came about?

 

tia

[xav]

Try Kodak Tri X, it's probably the most exposure tolerant BW film. I've not used the latest Tri X which is slightly different from older versions, but I think it is still as tolerant as the old one.

I think Kodak T400 is a tabular grain film. In my experience I dislike T grain films for their limited exposure latitude.

[chip l.]

Did some shooting last Sept with the 400CN film. Very nice latitude IMO. Of course handled over exposure better then under. But did seem to hold up to 2 stops under.

[djphoto]

You can't go wrong with either Tri-X or HP-5+ as a conventional B&W film. As for the C-41 films, when they were first introduced their major selling point was their wide latitude. I prefer XP-2 Super, although others like the Kodak version. My experience is that they have a very usable five-stop range, from one stop under to four stops over. You should be able to "eyeball" an exposure somewhere in that neighborhood, even without a meter.

[lee_shively]

Both HP5+ and Tri-X have great latitude. I just read an article on the new Kodak B&W films in "Phototechniques" magazine. They did not find any difference in the processing of the new films compared to the old films and the only interesting observation concerning the new Tri-X is that it now has finer grain than T-Max 400.

[continuity]

You might want to check out this page too: <br>

<a href="http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/techniques/exposure.html">http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/techniques/exposure.html</a><p>

It's a listing of exposure values for common lighting scenarios.

[al_kaplan1]

The "new" Tri-X, when developed (D76 1:1) together with the "old" Tri-X in the same tank produces negatives that look the same as to both density and printing contrast. I'm not sure how Kodak came up with different developing times. Both Tri-X and HP5 Plus have a fairly wide exposure lattitude.

 

I'd suspect your local store is not familiar with C-41 process color films. The few times I've tried them the one hour lab didn't always get a neutral black but otherwise the prints were fine.

 

If you want to get a meter more in keeping with an older Leica I'd suggest bidding on a Weston Master IV or Master V on Ebay. These selenium celled meters require no battery and are extremely accurate, and sensitive enough for use indoors in moderately bright light. The cells do tend to die of old age but you can get them rebuilt with a new cell. Contact Quality Light Metric in Hollywood, CA. They used to sell rebuilt Westons also. I mailed them a Master V via Priority mail from Miami, FL last month and had it was repaired and back from it's trip to Calfornia via UPS 7 days later!

[george_conboy1]

Joop, either HP5 or Tri-X, as recommended above, should give you a good experience. I am partial to Tri-X. I have heard from a few people who have had great results with CN and who like being able to give it to a color lab to process.

 

More importantly, I would agree with the comments that you ought to be metering your exposures. At least try metering until you get the feel for what your exposure should be. After what you have spent on your M4 and lens neither the cost nor the size/weight of a light meter will seem like a big deal.

[al_kaplan1]

Travis, increased development affects contrast. While it will add overall density, it has the least effect in the shadow areas. It's best to give enough exposure to get the shadow detail you want. Under flat lighting, increased development will give you a negative that prints nicely on normal contrast paper. Most "available light" situations are both low light and high contrast. Pushing film will give you a useable photo, but often results in blown out high lights and inky black featureless shadows. A lot of the pictures we make at 1/15 second at f/2 with a 2 stop push would make for a much better photo if we rated and developed the film normally, and exposed for 1/4 second, or even 1/2 second with reduced development. Of course the picture wouldn't be sharp either, through camera or subject movement. Also, we've become so used to contrasty pictures in these low light situations that we accept them as reality.

[dennis_couvillion]

Joop:

 

At the risk of sounding repetitious, I also recommend Tri-X or HP5, which are about the same, except that in my experience HP5 has a little more contrast. If you're going to shoot black and white, you should consider developing your own. Tri-X/HP5 developed in diluted D-76 is very easy and I'm sure you'd be pleased with the results. You can also experiment with the developing times and exposure ratings to find what works best for you.

 

With regards to proper exposure, I've started using the "sunny 16" method and I'm getting very good results. (On reason, I'm sure, is because most black and white film is so forgiving.) But, I always carry a small meter (either a Gossen or VC) and check it when the lighting situation changes. And, if I'm shooting indoors or in shadows, I always use the meter.

 

One last suggestion. Film choice is a matter of personal preferance but you may want to try Fiji Neopan 400. When I use my IIIF and F3.5 Elmar I shoot it at 800 for the extra speed and develop it in good old T-Max. Very simple and with good results.

 

Bottom line is you should shoot a lot of film and experiment. Good shooting.

 

Dennis

[jim_a]

You might want to buy a small, inexpensive meter that's easy to carry, such as the Gossen Gigisix

<P>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bh5.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___257033___GODS___REG___CatID=0___SID=F3F8A7F8020)

<p>

If you stick with one speed film for a while you'll quickly train yourself to know what the exposure is for most any lighting situation.<P>

 

If you do get a meter carry it with you for a few weeks even if you don't have the camera. Look at lighting situations that are interesting and guess what you would have set on the M4. Then whip out the meter and see what reading it provides.<P>

 

As to your original question, I would vote for Tri-X.

[joop]

Thanks for your responses.

In fact, i still had a roll of HP5 which is in the camera right now,

nice to hear that this is what some of you recommend!

On this moment i have Tmax developper, because i was using mainly tmax400 before. I have used it once for HP5; does that work out fine with the HP5? or would rodinal be much better?

I'll also give tri-X a try, as it seems to be very popular here at this forum.

[travis1]

Thx Al. ;)

[lee_shively]

Joop,

 

I like D76 currently. I dilute it 1:3 with HP5+. I've used Rodinal 1:75 and sodium sulphite with Tri-X and it looked great to me. As you can see, I like very diluted developers. The only times I've used T-Max developer was with T-Max films. I did not like T-Max film so I don't have a lot of experience in that area. It's important that you work out a consistent pattern of development that accomodates your exposure. Use a meter. I tend to take a general meter reading of a scene and then estimate changes of exposure if the light changes. I also bracket when possible. Because of that, I like films with good latitude and developers with some compensation abilities. Enjoy the M4!

[Robin Smith]

You can expose XP-2 from 50ASA to 800ASA all without changing the basic C41 process, so this I suspect has the best latitude (probably the same for Kodak 400CN), also if you expose it at 50 you get the finest grain too - but very dense negs. But if you believe that C41 B & W is cheating then my vote goes for HP5 or Tri-X

[stephen hazelton]

"was shooting a roll of T400CN, having it developed at the local store, i was quite dissapointed with the results."

 

I assume this was printed on color paper. The prints are handy for proofs, as opposed to making a contact sheet, but can normally be improved upon considerably in the printing.

 

I have read that the T400CN is optimized for printing on B&W paper, while the Kodak "B&W" is optimized for printing on color paper. Anyway, the "B&W" doesn't look too hot on color paper, but can make some fine prints.

[natures-pencil]

Use any B&W film of ASA 100 or faster, and develop it in Rodinal, which is not only cheap

and environmentally less dam aging than othger developers (it is used at high dilutions

andlasts forever on your shelf after you have mixed it) but also magically brings out the

shadows while holding back the highlights.