ptarmigan Posted November 3, 2009 Share #1 Posted November 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've just purchased a Leica II (D) and I'll be looking for some film - I sold all mine 5 years ago when I went digital. I only want to shoot B&W but have no intention of printing from the negs, my wet darkroom days are long gone! Everything will be scanned. What scans well and is easy to get processed or process yourself? Any advice welcome. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Hi ptarmigan, Take a look here What B&W film is everyone sing these days?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted November 3, 2009 Share #2 Posted November 3, 2009 I've just purchased a Leica II (D) and I'll be looking for some film - I sold all mine 5 years ago when I went digital. I only want to shoot B&W but have no intention of printing from the negs, my wet darkroom days are long gone! Everything will be scanned. What scans well and is easy to get processed or process yourself? Any advice welcome. Not sure what bw film you liked in darkroom days. Mine was Tri-X. A friend of mine is in the process of scanning some of my selected negs, and he has had no problems. If you haven't done so already, there are some useful threads on best scanners for bw films...this is another important variable to ensure both ease and results. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AgXlove Posted November 3, 2009 Share #3 Posted November 3, 2009 Kodak Tri-X; arguably the best B&W film ever. Try it in full-on "sunny 16" sunlight (at ISO 400) - you'll get black blacks, white whites with detail and every shade of gray in between the two. Expect snappy, sharp prints. In subdued light (again at ISO 400), Tri-X takes on a different look - soft and beautiful with excellent detail and (again) a fantastic gray scale. At ISO 1600 in subdued light, the prints are nearly the same as at ISO 400; smooth grays with just a hint less contrast. The difference in contrast is nearly indistinguishable from Tri-X exposed at ISO 400. Printed to 11x14 inches, 35mm Tri-X negs created with Leica glass produce beautiful, smooth prints; this combination is truly amazing. In my book, Tri-X is damn near impossible to beat. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPJMP Posted November 3, 2009 Share #4 Posted November 3, 2009 Agree with what AgXlove said. Hard to go wrong with Tri-X especially if you intend to develop yourself and scan the negs. If you intend to let someone else do the processing, try Ilford XP2 Super. It can be developed any place color negatives can (1-hour photo, etc.). XP2 scans beautifully and you can use software like ICE to remove dust and scratched automatically. Spotting Tri-X scans in Photoshop can take a long time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptarmigan Posted November 3, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted November 3, 2009 Not sure what bw film you liked in darkroom days. Mine was Tri-X. A friend of mine is in the process of scanning some of my selected negs, and he has had no problems. If you haven't done so already, there are some useful threads on best scanners for bw films...this is another important variable to ensure both ease and results. Jeff I was mostly an FP4 man for negative film though I did also use XP2 400 and and HP5 and I dabbled a little Pan F50. My all time fav though was Agfa Scala but I doubt I'll be using it again due to the cost. Never tried Tri-X though. Kodak Tri-X; arguably the best B&W film ever. Try it in full-on "sunny 16" sunlight (at ISO 400) - you'll get black blacks, white whites with detail and every shade of gray in between the two. Expect snappy, sharp prints. In subdued light (again at ISO 400), Tri-X takes on a different look - soft and beautiful with excellent detail and (again) a fantastic gray scale. At ISO 1600 in subdued light, the prints are nearly the same as at ISO 400; smooth grays with just a hint less contrast. The difference in contrast is nearly indistinguishable from Tri-X exposed at ISO 400. Printed to 11x14 inches, 35mm Tri-X negs created with Leica glass produce beautiful, smooth prints; this combination is truly amazing. In my book, Tri-X is damn near impossible to beat. Thanks, sounds like a great option for me to try. Agree with what AgXlove said. Hard to go wrong with Tri-X especially if you intend to develop yourself and scan the negs. If you intend to let someone else do the processing, try Ilford XP2 Super. It can be developed any place color negatives can (1-hour photo, etc.). XP2 scans beautifully and you can use software like ICE to remove dust and scratched automatically. Spotting Tri-X scans in Photoshop can take a long time. Why the issues with spotting Tri-X scans? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 3, 2009 Share #6 Posted November 3, 2009 I'm more or less all digital now, but when I was shooting film it was usually either FP4 or Tri-X depending on the light. No problems scanning either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptarmigan Posted November 3, 2009 Author Share #7 Posted November 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Steve Hi! Well I'm 98% digital and I don't see that changing much, well maybe to 95% I very very occasionally use my OM1, OM2n, OM3 or OM4ti but I am thinking now that I have the Leica II (D) that I might do a bit more film. I'm also thinking of shifting the OM4ti to use the funds to get a IIIf Red Dial but we'll see how I get on with the new Barnack first. The OM4 looks unused - it's a peach. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dk_samurai Posted November 4, 2009 Share #8 Posted November 4, 2009 Hello Ian! I've shot with Kodak Tri-X and I love it! Still shooting Afga Scala and had it been possible to process it in Denmark, I'd shoot it much much much more. I've used all of Ilford's current films, except the FP4, as I like my films at full-stop ISOs. I've bought a box of Fuji Neopan 400, which looks fabulous with Rodinal standing development. I've pushed Tri-X to 1600 and got good results. Also pushed HP5 to 3200 and cannot tell that it's at 3200 at all. Wonderful stuff! I've shot Delta 3200 to compare to HP5 pushed, but my Canon 1V seems to leak a bit of light... enough to f*** up a 3200 speed film (which is actually just a 1600 film). When I get my Leica MP I shall compare Delta 3200 again, as right now cannot draw any conclusions as to which film I like best at 3200. The point I'm coming to is this: Shoot the film which you like the best AND is easy for you to process and get scanned. Ilford XP2 Super and Kodak BW400CN both are C-41 films and have the added benefit of being compatible with ICE during scans. Home developing is easy too, and unless you drag your film along the carpet, dust shouldn't be THAT big of an issue. Of course, if you're a freak about dust on film, go with the C-41 films and be a happy man! I have to push film often here in Denmark, because of poor lighting. Therefor am a huge fan of HP5, as there's no other b&w film that goes from 400 to 3200 and still look neato-bandito. If I didn't need to push film, XP2 would be my personal winner! Hope some of the above was useful to you. Enjoy shooting film! /David Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted November 4, 2009 Share #9 Posted November 4, 2009 XP2 and 400CN are wonderful, and they scan well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
northfaceboy Posted November 4, 2009 Share #10 Posted November 4, 2009 I am using 100 and 400 Tmax, I am quite impress with it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPerson Posted November 4, 2009 Share #11 Posted November 4, 2009 I still love Tri-X for the ability to change ASA, 200-1600, throughout a roll and then dunk in Diafine and get results. Earlier this year I totted up last years film consumption: Film x Rolls Kodak Tri-X x 321 Kodak Plus-X x 43 Agfa APX 100 x 172 Adox/Efke CHS ART 25 x 36 Adox/Efke CHS ART 50 x 52 Adox/Efke CHS ART 100 x 23 Fomapan 100 Classic x 57 This year it is more with other types added. I am currently playing with XP2 but developing myself in Diafine with interesting results. I mainly scan now and am considering dismantling my darkroom. There are still plenty of different B&W films to try and have fun with! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptarmigan Posted November 4, 2009 Author Share #12 Posted November 4, 2009 OK, ordered some film from Calumet - lowest price, much better than Mailshots. Kodak Tri-X 400 Kodak T-Max 100 Kodak T-Max 400 Kodak T-Max 1200 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted November 4, 2009 Share #13 Posted November 4, 2009 OK, ordered some film from Calumet - lowest price, much better than Mailshots. Kodak Tri-X 400 Kodak T-Max 100 Kodak T-Max 400 Kodak T-Max 1200 Have a look at 7dayshop prices. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikolas Posted November 4, 2009 Share #14 Posted November 4, 2009 (edited) I am just curious! if you after go for scan (and not to wet darkroom) why not using a colour film so you can also have color and b&w. I am asking, shooting with a positive film a velvia per example,don't you get fine gray after scanning? I have always used tri-x before go digital, by the way n Edited November 4, 2009 by nikolas Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 4, 2009 Share #15 Posted November 4, 2009 OK, ordered some film from Calumet - lowest price, much better than Mailshots... Kodak T-Max 100 I always found T-Max 100 rather unforgiving when it came to exposure and development - but that's probably due to my sloppy methods <grin>. I used to use Xtol diluted 1:3 and T-Max 100 didn't like this at all. Most other films were ok, and the development cost was pennies per film. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 4, 2009 Share #16 Posted November 4, 2009 I am just curious! if you after go for scan (and not to wet darkroom) why not using a colour film so you can also have color and b&w. Well 'proper' black and white film doesn't have the same response to colour as a colour film. Where as a colour film will try to be equality sensitive to all colours, that's not the case with most black and white films. If you take a colour scan and simply desaturate it you'll get a rather flat looking image. There are ways round this in post processing - which is essentially what is also often done when converting colour digital files to b&w - but it's probably simpler if you are shooting film to shoot black and white. With slide films there is also the question of contrast. They tend to be much more contrasty than black and white negative films - Velvia probably being one of the worst examples. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted November 4, 2009 Share #17 Posted November 4, 2009 OK, ordered some film from Calumet - lowest price, much better than Mailshots. Kodak Tri-X 400 Kodak T-Max 100 Kodak T-Max 400 Kodak T-Max 1200 Did you intentionally state the _true_ ISO value for the film on the last line (TMZ, I presume), or was it a typo? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptarmigan Posted November 4, 2009 Author Share #18 Posted November 4, 2009 Did you intentionally state the _true_ ISO value for the film on the last line (TMZ, I presume), or was it a typo? Yes, anything wrong with T-Max 1200? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikolas Posted November 4, 2009 Share #19 Posted November 4, 2009 Well 'proper' black and white film doesn't have the same response to colour as a colour film. Where as a colour film will try to be equality sensitive to all colours, that's not the case with most black and white films. If you take a colour scan and simply desaturate it you'll get a rather flat looking image. There are ways round this in post processing - which is essentially what is also often done when converting colour digital files to b&w - but it's probably simpler if you are shooting film to shoot black and white. With slide films there is also the question of contrast. They tend to be much more contrasty than black and white negative films - Velvia probably being one of the worst examples. Thanks, for reminding me 20 years ago when i had tried to print colour film using b&w method!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPJMP Posted November 4, 2009 Share #20 Posted November 4, 2009 Why the issues with spotting Tri-X scans? Most quality scanners have built-in dust & scratch removal software (for example, Digital ICE). It takes a little longer to scan when using this feature, but your scans will generally come out very clean with no need for extra attention. This software is designed to be used with color print and slide film. It doesn't work with traditional B&W films such as Tri-X, FP4, Neopan, etc. I've found that even when I take extra care to ensure my B&W negatives stay scratch and dust free, after scanning I have to go over them in Photoshop using the Spot Healish Brush tool and remove at least some offending dust and scratch marks. This can be a slow and tedious task at times. With C-41 process B&W films like Ilford XP2 and Kodak 400CN you can use the dust removal software and it makes for faster post-processing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.