35mm b/w film - landscape images ?

macvisual

macvisual

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,193
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
No
Using 35mm black & white film for landscape photography, what's your favourite b/w film and why?

I'm returning again to shoot 35mm after an absence of 18yrs, I want to shoot landscape photography using a Nikon FM body and Carl Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon T* ZF lens and a set of Lee ND grads etc...

Would love to hear your experience/advice/knowledge/thoughts.

Anyone wanting to show any of their actual landscape b/w images would be greatly appreciated.



Thanks;
Peter
 
Last edited:
i like ilford pan f, I always had at least two roles in the bag with about 6 fp4, 4 hp5 and 2 xp2. I tried the kodak t grain stuff and did not like it as much. for me the pan f made me think very carefully about the image i was capturing and the light i was exposing for, particularley shadow range of details.
Seemed to spool better too during loading on the reel.
 
Black and White in 35mm for me is Fuji Acros 100. It's the only 35mm Black and White I've used. Probably won't use anything else. I really love it.
Not much Landscape stuff to speak of, but here are a few snaps.
Shot on my Nikon F2 and always with a yellow filter.
Developed at home in Ilfosol 3. Many will suggest a different developer but it's done me OK.


Clasford11 by Captures...Moments....Forever, on Flickr


Acros741 - Version 2 by Captures...Moments....Forever, on Flickr


86440026 by Captures...Moments....Forever, on Flickr


Forest Walk by Captures...Moments....Forever, on Flickr

Hope this helps, Trev
 
So here's some heresy: does it really matter which black and white film you use?

OK clearly there are speed differences, and perhaps a bit of grain difference (although development might account for a lot of that).

I can see major differences among my colour films, but I suspect any differences I notice in black and white are down to subject, conditions and exposure rather than the film!

Shoot me now?
 
Burn the heretic :)

Have to agree Chris, I struggle to tell the difference between films of the same speed.
When I see what I consider to be a good quality photo I have taken and look at the film type, I see it varies a lot, and the quality is more to do with the light quality, lens used, exposure etc...than the film used.
 
I'd personally disagree with Chris on this one. For example, I'd wager that most could see a difference (side by side, having shot the same scene, same settings, yada yada yada...) between say Acros 100, FP4 and Adox CHS100.

Acros is very punchy and contrasty whereas Adox is has a far more 'aged' look and quite subtle. Also, both will render red tones differently to FP4 as their red sensitivity falls off quite rapidly whereas I believe FP4's response extends further into the reds. I'm sure there are other differences as well, but I'm no expert.
 
I use acros as my "slow" film. I find it neutrally toned, with fine grain and great detail. It also scans well and gives a lot of information that can be digitally played around with.
 
Well if Jonathan thinks Acros is "very punchy and contrasty" while Jim thinks the same film is "neutrally toned", doesn't that rather make my point?

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't making any kind of solid statement about film, just serious doubt about my own ability to really tell the difference or make use of that difference. I like Tri-X more than HP5 or Tmax400, but I don't think I could produce any real evidence. My one experiment with Neopan 400 (the non-CN one) was great, but again I suspect it was light, subject, exposure (and randomness, given my skill level) rather than the film!
 
Another vote for Acros 100, it is less contrasty than PanF but still has enough oomph. It is also the smoothest, creamiest film I have come acros :)

Chris, I also prefer Tri-X to HP5 and I know exactly why - TriX has "tighter" and more attractive grain (to me) and better tonality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top