Black and white photography with SLR, advice needed please.

[Crotal Bell]

So after the successful resurrection of my old canon 1000FN, I fancy trying to shoot a roll of black and white, a whole new venture.

What film would you recommend for a first try?

Subjects
People and old buildings springs to mind, but any good subjects you think I should look for ?

 

[moggi1964]

Ilford HP5 or if it's a very bright day Ilford Delta 100

 

[StephenM]

If you're having it developed, Ilford XP2 because it can be processed as a colour film if you have a one hour processing place near you. If sending it off, then pick a film speed to suit your subjects. My choice in 35mm is PanF Plus, but many find it hard to handle, positively hate it, and find it far too slow at 50. I never did, except for sports in dull weather and indoors. I've never used HP5 (or HP4 before it), only HP3.

I currently use FP4 in sheet film.

It's really a personal choice.

 

[Crotal Bell]

If you're having it developed, Ilford XP2 because it can be processed as a colour film if you have a one hour processing place near you. If sending it off, then pick a film speed to suit your subjects. My choice in 35mm is PanF Plus, but many find it hard to handle, positively hate it, and find it far too slow at 50. I never did, except for sports in dull weather and indoors. I've never used HP5 (or HP4 before it), only HP3.

I currently use FP4 in sheet film.

It's really a personal choice.

Hi Stephen, it will be going off to Filmdev, and I have no idea what I'll be photographing at the mo. General scenes and maybe people I should think.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Ilford HP5 or if it's a very bright day Ilford Delta 100

Ilford HP5, so is that a good all round B&W ?

 

[David_Mug]

After 50+ years using film I still always revert to PanF. I love its contrast and gradation and use it both for negatives and revesal processed for slides. I like FP4 as a 'snapshot' sort of film for everyday use. I am not a fan of HP5 as at 400ASA (yes I know you call it ISO now) it severely limits my ability to use large apertures to control depth of field (Bronica and Mamiya cameras with 1/500 and 1/400 maximium shutter speed) (and yes I do know that there are ND filters and I do own some). At the end of the day it is down to personal preference.

 

[PeterSpencer]

My vote is for Harman PAN 400 then, if you are happy that everything is working OK, move on to HP5 or Tri-X, if your budget will run to it.

 

[Sky]

Whichever one you can pick up for the best price.

My personal favourite due to it's simplicity, reliability and good price (Amazon if you have Prime) is Ilford HP5. I use this in both 120 and 35mm.

Develop it yourself though - it's a doddle and great fun. It also saves you a lot of money.

 

[Deleted member 95736]

It's gotta be FP4.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Middle of the road FP4. would be my suggestion as an all round material.

I've used it since the 1960s, only loading Tri-X or HP5 when I anticipated really poor light and flash was not an option. I seldom found a use for anything slower than FP4. In a rollfilm camera such as a Hasselblad, it can give really solid results...

 

[Asha]

Tbh given general light levels in the uk I’d probably go with a 400 speed film.

Personally I’m not a fan of HP5, at least not in roll film.
Rollei films I found offered nice crisp contrasty negatives both in 35mm and 120.
Having quite recently returned to shooting some medium format 6x6, Rollei RPX 400 has found its way into my film stocks .

As Stephen mentions however, if you intend to use labs for developing, XP2 with its C41 process may prove more practical.

 

[ChrisR]

Hi Stephen, it will be going off to Filmdev, and I have no idea what I'll be photographing at the mo. General scenes and maybe people I should think.

XP2 would give you cheaper dev/scan prices at Filmdev than the traditional black and white films. It is slightly high contrast (IMO) but extremely flexible. It would be a reasonable starter choice. You might even be able to buy a roll in your local Bots!

 

[ChrisR]

Ilford HP5, so is that a good all round B&W ?

HP5 is an extremely good all round black and white film, maybe a slight reduction in flexibility in the brightest summer weather; most SLRs should handle it fine, but you'll likely not be shooting it wide open in summer... except in the woods, perhaps.

 

[woof woof]

So after the successful resurrection of my old canon 1000FN, I fancy trying to shoot a roll of black and white, a whole new venture.

What film would you recommend for a first try?

Subjects
People and old buildings springs to mind, but any good subjects you think I should look for ?

As you have a digital camera I'd use the pictures you've taken with it as a guide to your decision on speed here, in your place I'd think about the shutter speeds and ISO's you've used and buy film accordingly.

Back when I used film my most used was 1600 as a lot of my pictures were taken indoors but even the ones taken outside often needed higher ISO film and even with 1600 I was often at double digit shutter speeds for the indoor shots.

 

[Crotal Bell]

XP2 would give you cheaper dev/scan prices at Filmdev than the traditional black and white films. It is slightly high contrast (IMO) but extremely flexible. It would be a reasonable starter choice. You might even be able to buy a roll in your local Bots!

I think I'm gonna go for this one. I read a review that it is very good under several ISO ranges, and it sounds like a good starter film for someone like me. Unless you think HP5 would be even more flexible?

 

[Asha]

I think I'm gonna go for this one. I read a review that it is very good under several ISO ranges, and it sounds like a good starter film for someone like me. Unless you think HP5 would be even more flexible?

A roll of each perhaps and compare the results to see which, if either , you prefer?

 

[ancient_mariner]

XP2 would be my vote. Flexible as said, plus the results will *look* like film with visible grain. A problem for some shooting film is while they are wowed by the medium, the results look like a mediocre digital shot. Old 35mm gear can't match the resolution and crispness of good digital, but it can have a charm of its own if you use the characteristics of film to enhance the image.

Personally I like the look a grainy film gives an image, though I probably wouldn't use it for detailed landscape work.

 

[Crotal Bell]

XP2 would be my vote. Flexible as said, plus the results will *look* like film with visible grain. A problem for some shooting film is while they are wowed by the medium, the results look like a mediocre digital shot. Old 35mm gear can't match the resolution and crispness of good digital, but it can have a charm of its own if you use the characteristics of film to enhance the image.

Personally I like the look a grainy film gives an image, though I probably wouldn't use it for detailed landscape work.

so what you're saying is some of the new B&W films don't give the classic film look ?

 

[Plain Nev]

Oh, now there's a can of worms. There is that indefinable quality to black and white film, in my experience. Although, I've also found that I've got excellent results that are pin sharp with films such as HP5. And, to be honest you might struggle to tell them apart from digital in some cases.

 

[Asha]

so what you're saying is some of the new B&W films don't give the classic film look ?

XP2 would be my vote. Flexible as said, plus the results will *look* like film with visible grain. A problem for some shooting film is while they are wowed by the medium, the results look like a mediocre digital shot. Old 35mm gear can't match the resolution and crispness of good digital, but it can have a charm of its own if you use the characteristics of film to enhance the image.

Personally I like the look a grainy film gives an image, though I probably wouldn't use it for detailed landscape work.

Oh, now there's a can of worms. There is that indefinable quality to black and white film, in my experience. Although, I've also found that I've got excellent results that are pin sharp with films such as HP5. And, to be honest you might struggle to tell them apart from digital in some cases.

Now let’s put this into perspective.

Perhaps there are folk who feel that some films don’t offer the ´classic film look’ .

If the negative has been contact printed or enlarged as a ´classic’ wet print then maybe these views could prove to be valid when comparing prints alongside each other .

The fact is however, that in modern times, the majority of positive images from film negatives are obtain digitally either by a scanner or a dslr ´scanning set up and are as such a digital file which cannot offer the ´true classic film’ result that some people search for.’
To add to this , most togs don’t print out anymore thus the images are viewed on a pixelated computer or fone screen .

 

[lindsay]

All of the above suggestions - FP4, HP5, XP2 - are solid. Each suits slightly different requirements though. Personally as we seem to be having a good summer, I'd choose FP4 or XPO2 though, as we have mostly bright days at present.

 

[StephenM]

And from the other side of the fence to Asha (I use black and white film then scan and print digitally because I get a "look" that I regard as the same as a wet print (except that I'm a better digital printer than a wet printer) and superior to the result I get when starting from a digital image.

I've only noticed two real differences between different black and white films - the contrast (which can be altered by development) and the grain. Unlike many here, I hate grain. I don't see grain when I look at the sky, and I don't want to see grain when I look at the sky in a print, thank you very much. Some films I've thought have been "muddy" - low contrast, lacking sparkle in the print. Probably my development. PanF always gave me the look I liked, but I'll admit that FP4 Plus also manages it - I have to use FP4 in sheet film, because PanF doesn't come bigger than roll film. Summing that up, I'm pretty film neutral really, so long as it's film.

On the other hand, there is one film that is rather more classic than anything else, and that's Ilford Ortho. As the name says, it's orthochromatic which basically means not very sensitive to red. It was the closest to a true scene representation until panchromatic film became available (let's say in the 1920s) and many photographers used ortho after that because it was cheaper. It works rather well with foliage, not so well at white fluffy clouds.

 

[StephenM]

One interesting but irrelevant fact - using ortho film was the reason the silent film stars used blue lipstick...

 

[ancient_mariner]

so what you're saying is some of the new B&W films don't give the classic film look ?

Not exactly.

There's an 'art' site - ello.co - that I've been involved in for quite a long time now. There was a period when some people would post pictures that were very mediocre mono images, but they were all full of 'wow' about their pictures because they were made on film instead of digitally. The actual images might have been shot on any digital camera and then badly converted to mono, because there was nothing special about them. If you want a 'film' look to your pictures then use something with obvious grain, because it will clearly be film. If you want the highest quality film images then toss that old canon and buy a medium format* or even a true full-frame camera (10X8 sheetfilm) because 35mm film images generally aren't very good, simply due to the physics of film and the relatively low quaity of older lenses.

This is not to put down older images made with film in any way, nor to say that it's not possible to make excellent images with conventional 35mm film kit still. But. You are starting out, and if you want that sprinkle of fairydust from film in your first roll of images then picking a faster, contrasty, slightly grainy film is more likely to provide it than a slower, less contrasty one that may carry more detail but can just look a bit dull.

*Like one or two in this thread, when film was all there was to shoot I ended up using medium and larger format because the quality of 35mm sucked. And I used to print my own pictures. I'd put current full frame cameras & associated lenses as being very comparable with medium format gear from the 1980s in terms of technical image quality. There's still a difference due to the different focal lengths used and the degree of enlargement required to create an image, but that's subtle rather than overt.

This is just my opinion, and as you know, plenty of others are available.

 

[Asha]

One interesting but irrelevant fact - using ortho film was the reason the silent film stars used blue lipstick...

I just love your irrelevant facts cos more often than not they teach me something I didn’t know!

 

[Crotal Bell]

Now let’s put this into perspective.

Perhaps there are folk who feel that some films don’t offer the ´classic film look’ .

If the negative has been contact printed or enlarged as a ´classic’ wet print then maybe these views could prove to be valid when comparing prints alongside each other .

The fact is however, that in modern times, the majority of positive images from film negatives are obtain digitally either by a scanner or a dslr ´scanning set up and are as such a digital file which cannot offer the ´true classic film’ result that some people search for.’
To add to this , most togs don’t print out anymore thus the images are viewed on a pixelated computer or fone screen .

Good point, I can see what you mean.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Not exactly.

There's an 'art' site - ello.co - that I've been involved in for quite a long time now. There was a period when some people would post pictures that were very mediocre mono images, but they were all full of 'wow' about their pictures because they were made on film instead of digitally. The actual images might have been shot on any digital camera and then badly converted to mono, because there was nothing special about them. If you want a 'film' look to your pictures then use something with obvious grain, because it will clearly be film. If you want the highest quality film images then toss that old canon and buy a medium format* or even a true full-frame camera (10X8 sheetfilm) because 35mm film images generally aren't very good, simply due to the physics of film and the relatively low quaity of older lenses.

This is not to put down older images made with film in any way, nor to say that it's not possible to make excellent images with conventional 35mm film kit still. But. You are starting out, and if you want that sprinkle of fairydust from film in your first roll of images then picking a faster, contrasty, slightly grainy film is more likely to provide it than a slower, less contrasty one that may carry more detail but can just look a bit dull.

*Like one or two in this thread, when film was all there was to shoot I ended up using medium and larger format because the quality of 35mm sucked. And I used to print my own pictures. I'd put current full frame cameras & associated lenses as being very comparable with medium format gear from the 1980s in terms of technical image quality. There's still a difference due to the different focal lengths used and the degree of enlargement required to create an image, but that's subtle rather than overt.

This is just my opinion, and as you know, plenty of others are available.

There's a lot more to it than meets the eye. One thing I am learning is that photography is a very personal thing. There is so much equipment and preference, and not just the equipment, but also how the finished images will look. One mans meat is another mans poison as they say.

 

[FishyFish]

Another thing to consider is that a lot of the “look” is not purely down to the film, it’s also (whether in a traditional darkroom or a digital workflow) strongly influenced by how the image is post-processed. Most films can have a wide variety of looks depending on how the photographer chooses to edit or print their pictures.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Another thing to consider is that a lot of the “look” is not purely down to the film, it’s also (whether in a traditional darkroom or a digital workflow) strongly influenced by how the image is post-processed. Most films can have a wide variety of looks depending on how the photographer chooses to edit or print their pictures.

Absoluetely. For a photographer, taking the picture is just the beginning. While some like the 'boots' approach (use what comes out of the camera/scanner/printer) many of us work our images to release the picture inside. A negative or Raw is the starting point, rather than the finished state, and whether using an enlarger or lightroom, there's a lot that can be done to alter how a picture looks.

This image came from the same raw file, but if I'd been shooting film I could have produced it by using 2 different coloured filters on the camera lens to create 2 negatives.
Black and white vine by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

 

[Mr Badger]

I think there can sometimes be some nonsense talked about film on photography forums these days, quite often by those who may not actually have used film for around quarter of a century.

A shot taken on Ilford XP2 Super with a 1950s Ensign Selfix 1620 folding camera (6x4.5 negatives on 120 medium format roll film) last month :

DB tractor


A shot taken on Kodak Ektar 100 (35mm film) with a Canon EOS-3 and 24-105 L lens about five years ago:

Americana


Click on the images to view full size in Flickr and zoom in to see the detail and you can make your own mind up... but suffice it to say that I don't think I'll be tossing any of my 35mm Canon SLRs away anytime soon.

Oh, and if you give XP2 a go then don't forget you can shoot it at 200 ISO on a sunny day and 400 ISO on a dull day, on the same roll of film and have it developed normally, with no special instructions to the film lab. Shooting XP2 at 200 ISO on a sunny day gives more detail in the shadow. Hope this is useful.

 

[Peter B]

So after the successful resurrection of my old canon 1000FN, I fancy trying to shoot a roll of black and white, a whole new venture.

What film would you recommend for a first try?

Subjects
People and old buildings springs to mind, but any good subjects you think I should look for ?

The great thing about b&w is that there is a synergy between films and developers, so it's not just film choice. Ilford XP2 uses standard C41 film chemistry, so can give a more "standard" end result. This might help with choosing a future film/developer combo to improve on your XP2 experience.

 

[Crotal Bell]

I think there can sometimes be some nonsense talked about film on photography forums these days, quite often by those who may not actually have used film for around quarter of a century.

A shot taken on Ilford XP2 Super with a 1950s Ensign Selfix 1620 folding camera (6x4.5 negatives on 120 medium format roll film) last month :

DB tractor


A shot taken on Kodak Ektar 100 (35mm film) with a Canon EOS-3 and 28-105 L lens about five years ago:

Americana


Click on the images to view full size in Flickr and zoom in to see the detail and you can make your own mind up... but suffice it to say that I don't think I'll be tossing any of my 35mm Canon SLRs away anytime soon.

Oh, and if you give XP2 a go then don't forget you can shoot it at 200 ISO on a sunny day and 400 ISO on a dull day, on the same roll of film and have it developed normally, with no special instructions to the film lab. Shooting XP2 at 200 ISO on a sunny day gives more detail in the shadow. Hope this is useful.

Those are great photos. Thanks for the tip on the ISO with XP2.

 

[Mr Badger]

Those are great photos. Thanks for the tip on the ISO with XP2.

Medium format film will often capture a bit more detail, but with modern films these days 35mm can do a perfectly good job, and with up to 36 shots on a roll it's a lot cheaper to practice with than a roll of 120 medium format, with as little as 8 shots per roll!

Kodak Ektar 100 in 35mm, Canon EOS-3 with 28-135 IS lens:

Tool shop


Fuji Neopan Acros 100 (now discontinued) in 6x6 120 medium format, Yashica 635 TLR:

Jeep


Once you have to start squinting and zooming right in and 'pixel peeping' then I think it's game over for that photo anyway; in the majority of cases it should be the photo that grabs the viewer's attention, not the minute detail in the film emulsion!

This one was taken with a 1924 Kodak Brownie Box camera (120 roll film) with fixed-focus meniscus lens, it's certainly a 'soft' looking image by modern standards, but I think that look lends itself to the 'historic' feel of the photo.

American Civil War

So I'd much rather concentrate on the important stuff like exposure, depth of field, matching the 'look' of the film to the subject, and most important of all, learning to 'see' a shot. I think sharpness and minute detail can be very overrated concept.

 

[trypdal]

Now let’s put this into perspective.

The fact is however, that in modern times, the majority of positive images from film negatives are obtain digitally either by a scanner or a dslr ´scanning set up and are as such a digital file which cannot offer the ´true classic film’ result that some people search for.’

This is completely false IME.

I shoot film and scan my negatives exclusively. The film look I crave is 100% present in my negative scans. I personally am unable to obtain (and not interested in striving to obtain) this look by manipulating a digital file obtained with a DSLR.

 

[Deleted member 95736]

This is completely false IME.

I shoot film and scan my negatives exclusively. The film look I crave is 100% present in my negative scans. I personally am unable to obtain (and not interested in striving to obtain) this look by manipulating a digital file obtained with a DSLR.

That isn't what he's saying. He's saying that negatives are digitally scanned in most cases either by a DSLR or a scanner. He's not saying they are originally digital images made to look like film, unless of course I'm misunderstanding one of the two of you.

Digital scan of negs are of course a translation. If you've ever used more than one device or camera to scan a neg and looked at it closely you'll see that the grain is quite often represented differently on each scan. There's probably a technical explanation of how pixel pitch influences this but nevertheless it is a translation. Same as if I view the pictures posted on this thread on my phone or on my computer screen I notice different aspects about film grain, which is much more noticeable on my phone than my computer screen. negatives were never meant for this digital world we exist in now, so everything about them on digital is a translation.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

negatives were never meant for this digital world we exist in now,

Damn those idiots like Daguerre and Fox Talbot.

Why didn't they anticipate that in just a century or so everyone would be using digital?

 

[StephenM]

The "Holy Grail" of early prints was permanence; everyone was striving to creat an image using permanent pigments rather than dyes (fading) or silver (chemical reactions). Had inkjet printing been invented using pigment inks, that would have swept the market.

 

[woof woof]

Just on the general ISO point. I sometimes wonder what's wrong where I live as even on a sunny day depending on where I stand and what I point my camera at I can be at ISO 800, 1,600 or 2,000 if I want some depth to my pictures and I'm only talking f8 here with a 35mm lens and as for indoor pictures, you can pretty much forget them if limited to ISO 400. Years back I used to take a lot of pictures indoors and with ISO 1.600 I could be limited to double digit shutter speeds with the subject movement blur that brings.

Maybe I'm spoilt these days but I'd hate to be limited to even ISO 1,600 and the choice of motion blur or not taking the picture or only taking one at f1.x.

I'd urge any digital users thinking of using film to check the exif info of their digital pictures and decide if film is a viable choice or if they'll be happy to be limited to taking only the shots when film isn't a limiting factor.

 

[trypdal]

Digital scan of negs are of course a translation.

Digital scans are translations of a negative, just like wet lab prints are translations of a negative. Both of them valid, both of them interesting vehicles to distribute the photo (intended as a composition) which is present in the negative.

negatives were never meant for this digital world we exist in now, so everything about them on digital is a translation.

Who says? You? Would you like to show me your badge proving you are part of the original "Film was always ever meant for what I say it was meant for" Commission?

 

[StephenM]

Just on the general ISO point. I sometimes wonder what's wrong where I live as even on a sunny day depending on where I stand and what I point my camera at I can be at ISO 800, 1,600 or 2,000 if I want some depth to my pictures and I'm only talking f8 here with a 35mm lens and as for indoor pictures, you can pretty much forget them if limited to ISO 400. Years back I used to take a lot of pictures indoors and with ISO 1.600 I could be limited to double digit shutter speeds with the subject movement blur that brings.

It's probably down to creeping grade inflation. When I were a lad, eggs were graded as small, medium and large; now eggs are medium, large and extra large. Perhaps the same thing happened when film speeds changed from ASA to ISO (like the prices that went up when the UK went decimal).

That said, I found using PanF at 50 ASA that I was using f/8 in sunny weather, and come early evening I opened up to f/5.6, in both instances at 1/250th sec, the fastest my then camera could manage. This was in the West Riding of Yorkshire, so "up north" to southerners (and midlands to the Scots).