Hello Newbee needs advice on what FILM to use in my camera

U

:username:

Suspended / Banned
Messages
49
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I have just bought an OLYMPUS OM10 MD and need to know what film to use??

Sorry this may seem like a stupid simple question but i'm new to photography and need all the advice I can get.

I want to use Black and white film to mainly photograph buildings and structures.

Help??

Please!
 
Hey, there.

The answer depends on a lot of things. How much grain do you want? Do you want a true B&W film, or a C41 (actually color film that appears B&W.) Will you need to push process it? How fast does it need to be?

Personally, my hands-down favorite B&W is good old Tri-X. Good for what ails you, and is generally easy to find. That said, I don't mind some nice grain. I know others who prefer Ilford films (HP5 and FP4) but I always find the grain a little mushy.

- CJ
 
cjnicolai offers good advice, but if you can afford to, experimenting is worth while.

I process my own B&W film, so that's something for me to take into consideration. I like Tri-X, but it's notably more pricey than the Ilford's & Fuji's. So being a cheapskate I tend to pass it by.
I find HP5 & FP4 quite usable, but I don't find the grain terribly smooth. I get that problem even moreso with the Delta's, so tend to pass them by too.
I find the Fuji Neopan range to be a nice toss up between cost, results & ease of processing. A good all rounder, but for architectural stuff I'd want to use something a bit slower...
If you're using a tripod then some Ilford PANF is worth a whirl, it's cheap and ticks all the right boxes, but working at ISO50 can be a little tricky.
I recently did a whole body of architechtural work on Rollei PAN25. Really nice film, but really pricey, tricky to work with, and I wouldn't want to send it off to a lab for processing...

Tell us some more about what you're planning to do :)
 
Can't make any recommendations as to the film to use but will follow this thread with interest as I'm in the same situation at the moment.
The OM10 is an excellent camera though, I own one myself :thumbs:
 
This should be a great thread, I reckon you'll get a different opinion for each post here. :lol:

That's what makes B&W so absolutley brilliant, infinate ways to do anything and not one of them can claim to be right. I've never liked FP4 or HP5, Delta was always a far better range from Ilford but the only one I ever used was the colour process when ease was needed, still liked it more though.

Fuji Neopan stuff was always good, as was the Tri X but my personal fave by miles and miles was Kodaks Technical Pan. I have no idea if it's even still made. It's a total pain in the backside, rated at 25 ISO and can only be processed in one specific chemical which is really hard to get hold of. All that said, the results are out of this world for detail and depth of tone.

The only way you'll ever find out which is for you, is to work your way through as many as you can. Enjoy. :D
 
WOW!

Great responce, thanks for all the opinions on film!

I think I will start out with the cheaper film as i'm learning. I am off to Paris next week so I will take a load of pictures and see what comes out!!

Thanks again!
 
Make sure you keep the films on you for the return journey - not sure if it's just a myth but I've heard of the airport scanners damaging films. An American company that I wanted to buy film from refused to ship overseas because of the customs scanning damaging their films in the past :shrug:
 
dazzajl said:
This should be a great thread, I reckon you'll get a different opinion for each post here. :lol:

That's what makes B&W so absolutley brilliant, infinate ways to do anything and not one of them can claim to be right. I've never liked FP4 or HP5, Delta was always a far better range from Ilford but the only one I ever used was the colour process when ease was needed, still liked it more though.

Fuji Neopan stuff was always good, as was the Tri X but my personal fave by miles and miles was Kodaks Technical Pan. I have no idea if it's even still made. It's a total pain in the backside, rated at 25 ISO and can only be processed in one specific chemical which is really hard to get hold of. All that said, the results are out of this world for detail and depth of tone.

The only way you'll ever find out which is for you, is to work your way through as many as you can. Enjoy. :D
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, TechPan is a thing of the past now. Too bad, too. It was good stuff.

You're correct that Ilford is cheaper in the UK and Europe than Tri-X. Here in the States, the reverse is true.
 
Hi :username:
If you're just starting out in photography, I'd recommend the Ilford film as it's the cheapest, so won't be too costly if you get lots of duff prints. Will you be developing the film yourself?

Have a look at 7dayshop as they are really cheap for Ilford FP4 / HP5. I've just done an A Level photography course and this was the film we had to use. I've been quite pleased with the prints I've got. Start with something basic and work your way up!
 
Great!! Thanks for all the links!

Would I sound really useless if I asked what all the 400 and 125 numbers mean!!??

Yes I think I do.......
 
:username: said:
Great!! Thanks for all the links!

Would I sound really useless if I asked what all the 400 and 125 numbers mean!!??

Yes I think I do.......
Click to expand...

They are the ISO ratings. Basically, if you are gonna be taking photographs on a bright, sunny day or have good light conditions, you will need a lower ISO (or lower number). If it's a dark, miserable day or poor light, you will need a higher ISO. Generally, 200-400 tend be good all rounders. Another thing is that the higher ISO rating you have, the more 'noise' or grain you will notice (ie the photo will look fuzzier!). I tried to make it simple, so I hope you understand what I'm talking about.
 
minimeeze said:
They are the ISO ratings. Basically, if you are gonna be taking photographs on a bright, sunny day or have good light conditions, you will need a lower ISO (or lower number). If it's a dark, miserable day or poor light, you will need a higher ISO. Generally, 200-400 tend be good all rounders. Another thing is that the higher ISO rating you have, the more 'noise' or grain you will notice (ie the photo will look fuzzier!). I tried to make it simple, so I hope you understand what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Yes that is very helpful!! Thank you! I understand! :)
 
Unless you plan on doing your own developing I'd stick with Ilford XP2 which any high street shop can process for you, standard b&w film can be very expensive to get processed and you'd certainly have to send it away.

XP2 is a very forgiving film which is good for new photographers.
 
Kodak's T400CN is a BW film that is using the Colour C41 process that any minlab can process. It loves over exposure so as a beginer you are unlikely to get duff results. It is favoured over Ilfords XP2 by the majority of UK wedding and Portrait photographers still on film. (I know this as I used to be Kodak's Technical support manager).

If you wish to dabble in the alchemy that is true BW then Kodak T-Max 100 will be a great choice for architecture and landscape as it is so fine grained and sharp.
:thumbs:
 
Hi, Sorry I didn't answer if i was developing myself. The answer is for the moment - No. I would like to get into that side of things too, but for now I'm going to concentrate on learning to work with my camera and taking pictures!

Mjwman: Thanks for that, I may try both films but you certainly sell the Kodak well!!!
 
Personally, I like XP2 much better than Kodak TCN. I'm surprised to see the statement that most UK film photogs prefer TCN? I find XP2 to have much better punch. There was a write up in Black & White Photography mag (UK, not US B&W) comparing the various C41 films, and Xp2 came in the hands down winner. The issue must've been at least a year ago, maybe longer.
 
Hello :username:
Any of the big name B&W films are capable of good results. As has previously been said experimentation to find the one you like is the key.
Just as importantly as film choice is where and how it is developed. Most high St labs including those offered in camera shops are very poor, even for the C41 process films. If you look in the back of any photo mag you will find people offering specialist B&W processing. Use one of these guys, or do it yourself.
You should get a good contrast range in any photo of a “normal” subject, including buildings. If you are not then the problem most often lies in the processing. You will also see advice that yellow, orange and red filters will increase contrast in B&W photos, which they do. Bear in mind this increases the contrast from “normal” to high contrast. Using a red filter to achieve a good “normal” tonal range is not necessary and is not a substitute for good processing. If your pictures are all grey with no real black or white change processors.
That said a yellow filter for architectural photography will often bring out more texture in the structure especially with stone buildings, again experiment.
I hope this is of interest to you.
 
ilikebowens said:
Just as importantly as film choice is where and how it is developed. Most high St labs including those offered in camera shops are very poor, even for the C41 process films. If you look in the back of any photo mag you will find people offering specialist B&W processing. Use one of these guys, or do it yourself.
You should get a good contrast range in any photo of a “normal” subject, including buildings. If you are not then the problem most often lies in the processing. You will also see advice that yellow, orange and red filters will increase contrast in B&W photos, which they do. Bear in mind this increases the contrast from “normal” to high contrast. Using a red filter to achieve a good “normal” tonal range is not necessary and is not a substitute for good processing. If your pictures are all grey with no real black or white change processors.
Click to expand...

Do bear in mind that poor exposure can also cause your prints to be all grey with no real black or white. If your neg is underexposed, the print WILL be grey and flat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top