Film Shooters (B&W shooters specifically) some advice and help

[Scubatooth]

As some of you might know that im a photography major at the school i go to and this summer i have a good opportunity to test a bunch of films this summer to see what i actually like (i have mainly shooting T-max 400 and 3200 because thats what the school wanted for the first class).

this is a different process from me as i mainly have a backgroound in pre electronic press editting so the film side is a little different for me but so far i like it. the only annoying part in doing B&W prints is that what take me less then 5 mins in PS takes several hours in the dark room to get one print just right without any problems with it (dust, focus, burning or dodging etc)

I have read a fair bit on various processes for black and white and some of it is straight forward but some of it is confusing (like pulling and calculations needed for it, and why some people think that one film does better pushed while another from the same manufacture looks better pulled)but the problem i run into is that im using the schools equipment as i dont have it at home and dont have the time, money or room for it right now (being in college that is).

for example for Developers have my choice of at school are D-76 (1:2), or HC110 Dil B (1:7) so i am limited on that.


below is the list of films i was thinking of testing, etc but any and all advise would be appreciated

Kodak:
-Tmax 100 (have the rolls just havent shot it yet so probably normal speed)
-Tmax 400 (but try 800 + 1600)
-Tmax 3200 going to run as 3200 but also try a roll or two at 1600 to see what it does for minimizing the grain.
-BW400CN This replaces Portra400BW and can be run through color chemistry so that i can see some of my results from my shooting. ( i have shot a roll of the previous portra and really liked it)
-400TX have 2 rolls and would probably only shoot straight speed

ilford:
-Delta 100
-Delta 400 (some norm then 1stop(800) and 2 stop(1600) push
-Delta 3200 some at 1600 and some at 3200
-HP5 would try at straight 400 then same set as delta 400)
-XP2 this would be like the bw400CN above but having shot it at a event before i like how it looks from the couple of prints i have done from it. no pushing on this as this will go to my local wolf that i trust the operator, maybe down the road)
-FP4 probaly just two rolls at normal since i havent found much info on it


Fuji:
-100 (ss) probably just straight on but may bump up a stop as this is what one of my coworkers does with this one
-400 (again straight speed and same set as delta 400)
-1600 again going to try it at 1600 and 3200 to see what it looks like


i know this looks like a ambitious list but were i will be this summer i will have more then enough of a opportunity to work through the full range. also if anyone has any online or print resources please let me know so that i can read up on them. also if there are some films you think i should try let me know and i will look into them(BW only please)


Thanks for any help in advance
Tooth

 

[TheAvatar]

1. Pick an emulsion or two and just stick with them until you have learned all its secrets and intricacies. My B&W choices are TMX (T-Max 100) and TX (Tri-X) (if conditions really warrant, Delta 3200)
2. Delta 3200 looks nicer than TMZ
3. XP2 sucks... so does Kodak BW+
4. Fuji B&W sucks (except EDIT: ACROSS, NOT Neopan maintains reciprocity at extreme exposures where other films fail)

TMAX developer makes TMAX film looks *MUCH* nicer. D-76 1:2? Yech... 1:1 max. Straight is best.

 

[Scubatooth]

ok thanks for the advice

but i was wondering how you came to this conclusion did you try a bunch out?

but as for the xp and portras do you know this from experince or second hand because the one roll i have shot so far looks pretty good to me but i havent gotten to print it on a optical enlarger yet.

? on the fujis i thought the only black and whites it made was the neopan except for the arcos 100


Tooth

 

[fdog]

I'll preface this with a disclaimer: all my B+W prejudices come from a newspaper. You know, "There's little that can't be handled with a roll of Tri-X and a 300 f 2.8."

Anyway, I found that underwater is a pretty flat environment. I eventually compensated by shooting contrasty film and paper. Shallow (less than 20'), clear water with lots of sunlight actually looks good on Plus-X. Anything else and I use Tri-X, kind of mentally evaluating the dive and pushing a stop if it looks like it needs it. I also have pulled Tri-X a stop while underwater, and really didn't see a contrast reduction from it, just more detail in the shadows.

Ilford HP-5 has always struck me as a high-speed Plus-X. The other emulsions you list I really wouldn't venture a guess at. I can say I've always loved Ilford paper, and we used cases of it at the newspaper.

I did make an effort at getting to know T-Max. I liked the grain structure, but again, my upbringing has left me with a preference to contrast with shadow detail, so I always seem to return to Tri-X.

BTW, I have seen some very interesting results with IR B+W.

I agree, D-76 at 1:2? Yech. Especially if your lab is temperature controlled. Sure you can't just use it straight? HC-110 is good, just be on top of agitation or you'll get flameheads with the quick development times.

I'd be really interested to hear about your results comparing emulsions, I can't say I've really heard of a exhaustive underwater comparison of B+W films. Good luck!

All the best, James

 

[Scubatooth]

oh fdog

this isnt going to be all underwater a good portion of this will be above water as the area i will be out vis is just about as long as my arms stretched out in many cases, but i will be trying some UW

As for Papers i have used illford MG IV both RC and fiber papers and really like how they come out as my last two projects this summer were both on fiber. it does take alot long to work out and get a final result but its well worth the work.

oooooh 300 2.8 now thats a lense i would love to have above water for sports but i have other items on my list before that lense. as for the Tri-x how far have you been able to push it before having gone over the edge ? also do you all use color for anything ad if so what films are you using?

flame heads, is that a technical term i missed in class? for my agitation i get around 4 inversions per cycle at the 30 sec intervals. is that way to much ?

 

[fdog]

I've pushed Tri-X to 3200, and you could tell. Grain like boulders. We'd joke as we came back from assignments "I've got some full-framers here", meaning you pretty much had to print full frame, or the image quality would fall apart.

800 isn't bad, and I'd use this rather often. 1600 is something that you can do, except, the faces start to dissappear if it's strong overhead lighting (and you start wishing you'd paid more for that faster lens). 3200 is a desperation move, and if I had to reach out to 3200, I'd use Recording Film (do they even make this anymore?).

I would hardly call flameheads a technical term, more along the lines of slang. If you don't agitate enough, the developer just sits in the tank and thin areas (like a persons' head against sky) tends to leave "weak" developer that shows up as tracks on consistent thick areas (like sky).

The effect is very much like there is a faint, candle-flame shaped track coming from the tops of heads! To help prevent this, I agitate by adding a half-spin to the side-to-side inversion of the tank, and ended every agitation cycle with a tap-tap against the table to dislodge bubbles.

As far as color choices, for chromes:
UW it's Ektachrome G for most wide angle situations, to make the blue water "pop" a bit more. I meter the open water a bit underexposed to help this. Macro, I use my usual above water chrome, Velvia 100. I've found that unless the water is sparkling clear, it tends to go a bit green for my taste if I use Velvia wide angle.

C-41, I'm a Fuji person. UW, it's Superia for slow stuff, and Press for speed. Although lately I've tried some Kodak Ultra Pro, (only above water, though) and yum! great saturation. I may switch to this as a general purpose above water film, and as a macro UW film. None of the negative films, unfortunately, have really given me the blue saturation I've wanted without tending to green.

All the best, James

 

[louisianadiver]

Hey, Scubatooth. I know we've talked a little about this before, but I agree with others that D-76 1:2 is too diluted. I also agree that you might concentrate on one film and development before moving on instead of shotgunning lots of different films. The traditional standard to start is Tri-X and D-76. Try 1:1 D-76 at 68 degrees, 12 minutes with a single complete inversion (turn the cannister over, turn it right again, put it down and tap the sides with your fingertips to dislodge any bubbles that may have formed on the film) every 30 seconds with Tri-X at 400 ISO and see what you think. The lattitude of TX gives you many options when printing (try Dektol 1:2, no temp control necessary if using rapid RC paper--the image will come up in just a few seconds)
I used to use Velvia for macro underwater chromes, but I've become very fond of Proviaf 100 and now use it for wide angle, macro, and topside as well. I found that Velvia had a tendency to go purple in deep blue water for wide angle. Makes it easier to pack to use a single film for everything, too. Let us know how it goes. -Clay

 

[TheAvatar]

I tried the "Try every film out there" approach but quickly realized that that all my mentors were right, you won't see huge differences between films unless you've used them long enough to know and exploit all their intricacies. the differences in a given class weren't that great in most cases (IE, HP5+ is hardly different than TX, FP4 is hardly different than PlusX, Delta 400 is super close to TMAX 400) there were a few (Delta 3200 has less grain than TMZ) (TMX is waaaaay pickier than Delta 100, but if you do it right, much better... thats why all the zone photographers use TMX) did find that fuji neopan films sucked...

i ended up going to TMY from TX, but when I started shooting snow I decided I liked the way TX rendered snow detail and went back.

Screw C41 process B&W (from experience). T400CN has a color mask and is designed to print onto R4 process paper, not B&W... you would nead Panalure (which they don't make anymore). XP2 is a mud film.

Remember... shooting TMZ or Delta 3200 at 3200 is actually underexposing the film and you compensate in development... these are actually 800 and 1000 films respectivly. They both perform nicely at 1600. I have done Delta 3200 at 6400 and had some pleasing results (of course the shadows and highlights get lost and grain is enormous)

TX is forgiving in developer vs Delta/TMAX. That is why it is still the staple learning film.

 

[blacknet]

Hello,

TMX has some awsome properties underwater. Shoot 100/200 in the am and 400 in the pm, dont' forget to process accordingly. (i.e. TMX at 400 in the pm)

If your into some interesting stuff for b/w, read non-standard, then grab some scala-X and process in DR-5 and hold on to the bars because your in for some real treats. (check my gallery for some scala work)

Then again sensia100 makes good b/w images as well.

Ed

 

[Scubatooth]

Thanks guys for the help. so far i have been reading a bunch of info online to get a better feel for the films on the market, but more importantly i have read up devolpers (kodak) and it seems like the HC110(b) i have been using seems to be a more middle of the road developer that is ok, a middle of the road devolper D76 seems to be a little better in shadow detail and sharpness but a little more grain then the HC110 im using, but from looking over various items it looks like maybe trying some xtol would be better for overall use. (see chart below)


kodak devolper comparison image but the thing that makes me wonder is HC110 & D76 just a middle of road developer while the xtol is a fine grain that keeps the speed right on, is this right opinons please.

then also on top of this, i came to the conclusion that even if i do this full test of this and stay with HC110 or D76 that if at a later date i decide to switch i will have to start the tests over . so would it be better to just pick up some more of what i have used (tmax 400 and 3200) and just stay with the HC110 i have been using this past semester and maybe try out a few rolls(tri x and some delta 3200 and fuji 1600) to see how they come out. as i will need to get my order in the morning so that i will have it before i go out of town to work for the summer.

what do you think? Clay James, Ed, avatar