Black and white photography with SLR, advice needed please.

woof woof said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's where the learned knowledge of the photographer came in; it certainly sorted the sheep from the goats in those days and it was a pretty quick learning curve. I used to do a bit of gig photography years ago and for colour work I'd use Kodak Ektar 1000 ISO and Fuji 1,600 ISO film. Quite often I'd be on f/4 or f/4.5 and 1/125 second and have to wait until the stage lighting was bright enough before taking a shot, and use any motion blur to enhance the shot.

Jimmy Rogers


Joanne Shaw Taylor


These days, with a full frame digital camera that has good low light capability, I think pretty much anyone could get some acceptable shots, if only by machine gunning and the law of average.

However, I think we're straying way off topic with this and the thread is in danger of going down the Digital versus Film rabbit hole- so let's avoid that and concentrate on the original discussion. :)
 
trypdal said:
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.



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?
Click to expand...
I think you've misunderstood me. I'm absolutely not saying you can't do it or that it isn't desirable, you can and it is, I do it myself. I intend to do it more. I was just musing that the two mediums are quite different. An analogue grain structure versus a digital pixel and trying to represent one with the other doesn't always work as you think it might. I've spent hours digitising 1000's of my negs and slides and printing some and comparing them to original darkroom prints. Despite all efforts, they can often be quite different, not worse or better, just different.

As for my badge, I'll print that out for you one day just as soon as I've digitised it......
 
StephenM said:
It's probably down to creeping grade inflation.
Click to expand...
...and, in any case, it doesn't matter with a digital camera because "What You See Is What You Get". ;)
 
trypdal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Interesting that like Stephen you can obtain the film look that pleases you from scanning.

I have loads of inkjet prints from scans and compared to their wet printed counterparts , the majority have a look that resemble (imo ;))a digital photograph more than one derived from film.


Who knows, perhaps being fully aware of the fact that the print came from a pixelated file as opposed from a chemical process has something to do with it or even the fact that they somehow appear to be too perfect , if that makes sense.

Either way my film scanning days are becoming increasingly less and my time occupying myself with wet prints in the darkroom increasingly more.
 
StephenM said:
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).
Click to expand...

Just thinking back to my SLR and RF days. I used to take a lot of pictures at line dance ad country and western gigs and dance practices. At the practices I'd describe the lighting as good but even so with ISO 1,600 film I'd be at double digit shutter speeds which are too slow for people pictures without motion blur. As above, these days with digital I can be at ISO 800, 1,600 or even higher in daylight to be at f8 or even f5 and 1/160 which I'd describe as more reasonable than 1/xx for people pictures, and that's before thinking about shooting indoors. I know we're spoilt these days but I just wouldn't want to be that limited now.
 
Mr Badger said:
That's where the learned knowledge of the photographer came in; it certainly sorted the sheep from the goats in those days and it was a pretty quick learning curve. I used to do a bit of gig photography years ago and for colour work I'd use Kodak Ektar 1000 ISO and Fuji 1,600 ISO film. Quite often I'd be on f/4 or f/4.5 and 1/125 second and have to wait until the stage lighting was bright enough before taking a shot, and use any motion blur to enhance the shot.
Click to expand...
Mr Badger said:
These days, with a full frame digital camera that has good low light capability, I think pretty much anyone could get some acceptable shots, if only by machine gunning and the law of average.

However, I think we're straying way off topic with this and the thread is in danger of going down the Digital versus Film rabbit hole- so let's avoid that and concentrate on the original discussion. :)
Click to expand...

Yup. I've taken about a zillion shots at gigs so I know the limitations and waiting for the light to be "better" is a limitation as obviously you've missed a load of shots when the light wasn't good enough and this brings me on to your point about derailing the thread which isn't my intent.

All I'm saying is that people shooting digital and thinking of using film could look at their exif info to see if they'll be limited by film. If they may be limited by it the next question is do I want to only take the pictures that film allows and live with the fact that I'm maybe not going to be able to do things like shoot at ISO 1,600, f4 and 1/125-1/160.
 
woof woof said:
All I'm saying is that people shooting digital and thinking of using film could look at their exif info to see if they'll be limited by film. If they may be limited by it the next question is do I want to only take the pictures that film allows and live with the fact that I'm maybe not going to be able to do things like shoot at ISO 1,600, f4 and 1/125-1/160.
Click to expand...

An alternative view would be that film requires a different way of working - that could benefit some people, particularly if spontaneity is not as important as careful composition for example.
 
ancient_mariner said:
An alternative view would be that film requires a different way of working - that could benefit some people, particularly if spontaneity is not as important as careful composition for example.
Click to expand...

A different way of working, as in not being able to take some shots.

If you want a picture and it takes ISO 2,000, f4 and 1/160 then no amount of field craft with get you that shot at ISO 400. Yes, you can take a picture but it just wont be the same picture. I don't see how that benefits anyone unless they're relative newbies and haven't lived through this and if they are newbies then I think my point about checking the exif of the shots they already have and may want to take with film is all the more apt.

Anyway. I thought this could be relevant as people have been talking about films of various speeds and I've now made my point which is for clarity not that digital is "better" than film but that before spending money and going for a film set up it's probably worthwhile thinking about any limitations which may be imposed and deciding, if they affect you, if you can live with them.
 
Chroma Snapshot ( or any handheld 1970’s large format press camera), 5x4 grafmatic film holder and paper negatives, ISO 3 anyone ? :p
 
woof woof said:
Yup. I've taken about a zillion shots at gigs so I know the limitations and waiting for the light to be "better" is a limitation as obviously you've missed a load of shots when the light wasn't good enough
Click to expand...
Yes, a load of shots no one else could get either, then when the moment arose I'd grab the shot, whereas a lot of other people didn't! So it wasn't a constraint to me, it's what set me apart. These days, virtually any silly sod with a half-decent full frame camera, or even a good modern smartphone, could do it (if they took enough photos).

woof woof said:
All I'm saying is that people shooting digital and thinking of using film could look at their exif info to see if they'll be limited by film. If they may be limited by it the next question is do I want to only take the pictures that film allows and live with the fact that I'm maybe not going to be able to do things like shoot at ISO 1,600, f4 and 1/125-1/160.
Click to expand...

If they didn't want to try something different, then I think they'd probably just stick to digital. It's often a different experience that people want, and slowing down and having to think about the shot is a big part of the 'film experience'. Anyway, let's park it there - this is NOT a film v ditigal thread.
 
Last edited:
My take on the "moving from digital to film, look at the exif" is that you should remember that classic film cameras did not have zoom lenses; and a slow lens was f/2.8. Using a lens where f/1.4 is available does give you an extra boost over a f/4-5.6 zoom.

And I did suffer with indoor photos on HP3 (400 ASA) where the lighting in university residences and my home required 1/15th at f/2.8. My fastest lens was f/2.8 (a Domiplan on my Exakta) and my camera didn't have 1/15th shutter speed, so I had to use 1/8th.
 
StephenM said:
My take on the "moving from digital to film, look at the exif" is that you should remember that classic film cameras did not have zoom lenses; and a slow lens was f/2.8. Using a lens where f/1.4 is available does give you an extra boost over a f/4-5.6 zoom.
Click to expand...
I think that should perhaps be 'vintage' film cameras rather than 'classic' film cameras. Classics these days include stuff like the Canon A1, Nikon F2, Olympus OM1, and they did have zoom lenses available to them, particularly towards the end of their production run. Then we have 'modern classic' film cameras which include AF 35mm SLRs, and the latter-day 35mm point and shoot cameras.

It's a bit like a Mk1 Ford Fiesta now being regarded as a classic car, when we both remember them being launched! I feel quite old these days when I go to a classic car show!
 
Last edited:
Anyway, let's get back on topic... can anyone give the OP some suggestions on which B&W film best suits which subject? Perhaps give him some ideas about what subject might suit a coarse grained film, and what might suit a fine grained film? We know there's never a definitive answer, but some examples might be useful to him. :)
 
Mr Badger said:
Anyway, let's get back on topic... can anyone give the OP some suggestions on which B&W film best suits which subject? Perhaps give him some ideas about what subject might suit a coarse grained film, and what might suit a fine grained film? We know there's never a definitive answer, but some examples might be useful to him. :)
Click to expand...
IMO fine grain for landscapes or where there will be a moderate amount if sky in the scene. Stephen touched on this exact point earlier in the thread.

Distinct grain appears to suit certain portraits and I have to confess I wish to experiment more in this area myself.

I generally try and keep grain to a minimum but I think perhaps that some of the prints I have would actually benefit more from some grittiness.
 
I'd pretty much go along with that, but suggest grainy film for street/action/urban and also for moody & stormy weather. Otherwise finest grain possible for everything else. Also select films natural responsiveness for the scene in mind and tool up with coloured filters to control contrast.
 
Last edited:
Film, If you are developing it in a non-specialist commercial lab then XP2 all the way.
If you are doing it yourself or going to a good lab that will do the job correctly (and charge for doing so) then normal rules apply. Low ISO = fine grain and high ISO = course grain but option for more depth of field and or hand holding (the camera, not your significant other).
Is Brand x ISO 400 nicer than brand y ISO 400? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so try a few and see what you like. If you want the ultimate resolution there is also Adox CMS 20, but you will most lilkly need to develop that yourself, which is quite easy tbh. Then the weird films that Analouge Wonderland tend to champion.
I was in a branch of Wex Photo Video the other day and found their film prices to be quite competitive. Just thought I'd mention it.
Lastly, if in doubt XP2!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top