Jump to content

B&W recommendations?


Brenton C

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm intrigued to try B&W with my M3 (heck, maybe in my R5 too).

 

I used to develop it myself decades ago, so Im thinking I might develop, scan, but have any paper enlargments (if I ever get some worthy) will be done by a lab.

 

Could members kindly:

 

1. Suggest some films for out door and indoor available light?

 

2. Recommend a scanner?

 

3. Freely comment on the scanner plan if it's a bad idea?

 

Thanks in advance, and Happy New Year to the lot of you!

 

Edit:

 

Darn it, I fibbed. It's the girlfriend who has the R5. Mine's the lowly R4. ;-)

Edited by Brenton C
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Brenton,

 

A couple of answers from my side, although I'm sure you will get lots of different opinions, especially on Q1 ;)

 

1) when I used to develop my own b&w film 20 years ago, I swore by HP5 Plus. It's still available today so that says something about it. The base ISO is 400, but I used to regularly push it to 1600iso and get good results shooting low light at concerts. I forget the exact developer, but it was the Ilford own brand developer that I used. When a lower ISO was needed, I used FP4+, rated at 125. Nowadays, since I don't have the space to have a dedicated darkroom, I use Ilford XP2 film (400iso), as this can be developed using the C41 process at any shop that develops film. I have also used Kodak CN400, which is also C41, although I think I prefer the Ilford.

 

2) there is a considerable price difference in scanners available. Personally I chose the Plustek Opticfilm 8200i SE (I think) scanner, as this is a low cost high quality device. You can only scan negatives one by one, and it only supports 35mm, not medium format, but for my purposes and frequency of use that is sufficient. It supports various high end features, such as IR dust removal. The standard software it comes with is OK, but I 'upgraded' to VueScan from http://www.hamrick.com

 

3) well if you want to digitize home developed negs, the scanner is the only real option ;) your other route would be to use the C41 process b&w film, and ask the lab to scan the negs when they develop them for you. However in my experience, you either get low resolution jpg scans, or high quality scans at a very high price, at least where I get my negs developed. Might be different in Canada, but I think buying your own scanner will work out better financially in the long run. With a good home scan you can also use the same (online) process that you may already use for printing digital photos out - will be a lot cheaper than going via a dedicated b&w print lab.

 

Hope that helps!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll only comment on (1) as I have negs scanned at the time of developing.

 

I just love the differences between Ilford Delta and HP5. Delta's "special" type of grain can result in smoother texture, but it's really a great exercise to shoot both on the same subject.

 

Here is a great thread describing both.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My views are much the same as Simon’s.

 

1. I use Iford XP2 Super pretty much exclusively. It prints beautifully and scans beautifully. There are of course other very viable options, but XP2 serves very, very well. C41 processing is generally available at a good photoshop. Printing is very satisfying – developing negatives, not so much in my opinion.

 

2. I have a Canoscan scanner, which is very good indeed. I saw (here) a comparison between a Plustec and a Canoscan and the Plustec was marginally better in terms of sharp detail, but the difference was very marginal and hardly visible. Many will tell you that a flatbed scanner is inferior. I think this is nonsense, at least in my experience. Doing your own scanning is far superior.

 

3. Setting up a print darkroom is great, but for some people not practical. An interesting option is to send your scan files to Ilford Lab Direct (UK) or Digital Silver Images (near Boston). There is a place in Toronto called Elevator (I have seen their work (very good) but I have not used them myself). They will make prints on real silver gelatin paper from your files for very reasonable prices and mail them back to you. The quality is outstanding. This works very well – and you get real silver prints. I have received what I consider to be exhibition quality prints. Be prepared to work on your files with something like Photoshop and Silver Efex Pro - this makes a big difference.

 

This whole approach is very viable

Edited by Michael Hiles
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

1) when I used to develop my own b&w film 20 years ago, I swore by HP5 Plus. It's still available today so that says something about it. The base ISO is 400, but I used to regularly push it to 1600iso and get good results shooting low light at concerts. I forget the exact developer, but it was the Ilford own brand developer that I used.

 

Fwiw, I remembered the name of the developer - ilfosol S - looks like it is still made today

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ilford HP5 for outdoor and indoor, FP4 for outdoor, or XP2 if you don't want to process the film yourself.

 

Scanner, any of the 35mm Plustek range, they are pretty much all the same except for the bundled software. You can't use infra red Dust Removal technology with B&W silver based films, so don't get excited if you think it will be a big bonus, so just switch it off.

 

I process all my films at the kitchen sink, there is nothing scary about it and everything you need is easily available.

 

Go and do it!:)

 

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Scanner, any of the 35mm Plustek range, they are pretty much all the same except for the bundled software. You can't use infra red Dust Removal technology with B&W silver based films, so don't get excited if you think it will be a big bonus, so just switch it off.

 

Steve

 

Or just buy the less expensive version that doesn't have it 8100, I did :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely right Chris, I got one without the IR function which was much cheaper at the time. But the price of Plustek scanners, especially on Ebay where the previous models are heavily discounted across many retailers, leads to pricing chaos, and if the cheapest does by chance have IR, then still buy the cheapest. And Vuescan should probably be used instead of the bundled Silverfast software anyway.:)

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may as well join in as I have just started again with B&W film after previously only shooting it for a week or so when I did my work experience back in 91 (became a physicist / engineer rather than a photographer, something I have always been a little sad about).

 

My local lab does B&W developing, he only charges 50p more per roll than C-41 and does everything in ID-11 which he has been using for 35+ years so he must be like a guru with the stuff by now I guess. For much of the same reasons as discussed in this thread I bought some XP2 to start with, however I am now thinking more of using normal B&W film. For a start I can buy tri-x / t-max here for about £3.80 a roll but XP2 is over a fiver which makes it cheaper for me to send tri-x / t-max to this lab. Should I just go straight to a brick of tri-x or does t-max scan better, or does this really not make that much difference?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to hit the thanks button for all of you, but I'll just offer my collective "thanks" here.

 

A good few films to start with, and i'll read that linked article next.

 

I remember enlarging as the really tedious aspect of the art.

 

It seems a lot of people are scanning, for digital display. I'm glad there are still options for those times when you really want a physical print...a "hard copy" i guess, in this computer age.

Edited by Brenton C
Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely right Chris, I got one without the IR function which was much cheaper at the time. But the price of Plustek scanners, especially on Ebay where the previous models are heavily discounted across many retailers, leads to pricing chaos, and if the cheapest does by chance have IR, then still buy the cheapest. And Vuescan should probably be used instead of the bundled Silverfast software anyway.:)

 

Steve

 

Agree, although to be awkward and I know it goes against the flow of most people, I have found the Silverfast fine, I tried a trial of Vuescan and we didn't get on well. I scan and process in one step to jpeg with no further program used and post to Flickr.

A recent example of an extreme crop I posted here in another thread shows it works for me.

Perhaps if I was working the scanner to print at home I would look elsewhere? On those occasions I send the negs to Ilford and let their machines, which cost more than mine, and their staff, they have more experience then me in printing, and wait for the final product, never disappointed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brenton, I cannot recommend a better film than AgfaPhoto APX 400 or 100 Professional, and I believe that I have tried every B&W film made in the last fifty years.

 

Interesting. What are the qualities of the Agfa films that are over and above those of (for example) Tri-X and Acros 100, which are my current favourites?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Four emulsions mainly, depending on what I am doing and with which format:

 

XP2 for hand holding 35mm. Scans well and no orange mask.

Fuji Acros 100 for long exposures.

Ilford Delta 100 mainly on 6x12 and 6x17 for it's grain-free pictorial qualities.

Iford HP5+ for any format, especially hand holding 35mm, 6x9, 6x7 and 6x6.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've picked up some HP5+, and for fun, a roll of Delta3200.

 

Pico, i remember using Agfa slide film when I was a teen in the 70's. My dad would give me a roll for birthday or Christmas or something. I remember the really rich colours.

 

Thaks for that link Chris. In this digital era, it's all the more rare and so all the more striking to see B&W enlargements on someones wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IPico, i remember using Agfa slide film when I was a teen in the 70's.

 

 

My experience with Agfa reversal film is from the Sixties in Oxford, England and I was disappointed. Perhaps the outcomes were due to the processor. I will never know.

 

I am pleased that your outcomes were very good!

Edited by pico
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...