Black & White Portraits - Which Film?

Andysnap

Andysnap

Suspended / Banned
Messages
16,322
Name
Andy Grant
Edit My Images
Yes
As the title says really, I want to try and do some b&w portraits this year (probably square, because despite what some people are saying it is still hip to be square). I'm thinking of a kind of thirties look so something that has a more retro feel would suit, but fairly grainless.

Any thoughts.

Cheers

Andy
 
Are you printing or scanning? If scanning something like acros will give you a fairly blank canvas to work with whilst retaining a lot of detail. It also does greys really nicely so skin tones (dependant in the filters you use!) are usually nicely rendered.


Neopan Acros thru M6 3-37-Edit-Edit.jpg by menthel, on Flickr


Neopan Acros thru M6 3-6.jpg by menthel, on Flickr

Although HP5+ is no slouch either and if shot in MF (which these are not!) then the grain is not very noticable but adds a nice texture!


HP5+ thru M6 8-37.jpg by menthel, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Tri-X 400. In 120, the grain is controlled and just right (IMO).

T-Max 400 if you want more shadow detail.
 
I would probably think first of the light conditions under which you're taking them, and decide on the appropriate speed.

As for grain, if you're in medium format you probably don't need to worry about it at all. In 35mm, it obviously depends a bit more on the degree of enlargement.

Acros 100 is probably my favourite of all, but I've had good results from Tri-X, HP5+, Agfa APX100, FP4+, and T-Max 100/400 also

This is on 35mm Acros:

8682398145_fdb2208f6c_b.jpg


Example on HP5+ (also 35mm). A bit grainier but not excessively so - a more traditional B&W look perhaps:

8683511508_815ba70ae6_b.jpg
 
In the past when I used to do B/W, I always liked FP4:-

 
Ok, thanks guys, plenty to think about there. I'm looking at doing indoor shots with available light on MF, I intend to scan them in to produce a fairly large book (10" x 10" possibly) but as they will be pictures of my friends (yes I do have some!) some may be printed from the negs in a larger size but not bigger than 15" x 15" I wouldn't think.

Andy

Oh, and some lovely work here boys.
 
Andysnap said:
Ok, thanks guys, plenty to think about there. I'm looking at doing indoor shots with available light on MF, I intend to scan them in to produce a fairly large book (10" x 10" possibly) but as they will be pictures of my friends (yes I do have some!) some may be printed from the negs in a larger size but not bigger than 15" x 15" I wouldn't think.

Andy
Click to expand...

Sounds like a job for Tri-X then.
 
i used PanF-50 for a 40's style shoot i did a while back. They came out ok but i just scanned, didnt print from them.



 
I would shoot Tri-X at ISO800 in a decent speed-increasing developer - XTOL, T-Max Dev - and see how you feel about the grain and look. If it's more than acceptable, shoot T-Max at ISO800 instead - it's a different look, but the grain will be even more controlled.
 
essexash said:
i used PanF-50 for a 40's style shoot i did a while back. They came out ok but i just scanned, didnt print from them.



Click to expand...

Very nice work.:thumbs:
 
freecom2 said:
I would shoot Tri-X at ISO800 in a decent speed-increasing developer - XTOL, T-Max Dev - and see how you feel about the grain and look. If it's more than acceptable, shoot T-Max at ISO800 instead - it's a different look, but the grain will be even more controlled.
Click to expand...

I've shot TMAX-400 in 35mm at 640 and 800 and even in a non-speed enhancing developer (Paterson Aculux 3 - gives about 2/3rds of a stop extra according to the leaflet with it) on the same roll as frames shot at 400 and developed using the ISO 400 times, even then it looked pretty damn good grain wise with just a slight loss of shadow detail so in 120 with an appropriate developer like XTOL, T-Max etc I imagine it would be very good.
 
In 35mm I recently shot some Rollei RPX 100 and was impressed. Apparently it's very similar to Kentmere 100.

20130514161603_scan-130422-0010.jpg
 
s162216 said:
I've shot TMAX-400 in 35mm at 640 and 800 and even in a non-speed enhancing developer (Paterson Aculux 3 - gives about 2/3rds of a stop extra according to the leaflet with it) on the same roll as frames shot at 400 and developed using the ISO 400 times, even then it looked pretty damn good grain wise with just a slight loss of shadow detail so in 120 with an appropriate developer like XTOL, T-Max etc I imagine it would be very good.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:

I know I seem to bang on about it but it is an incredible, flexible and great looking film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top