Starting B&W, which film?
- Thread starter theITguy
- Start date
- Status
Used to be able to buy AgfaPan 25 Asa 25 B+W.
They stopped making.
Idiots.
Now only got AgfaPan 100.
When B+W were cheap and colour films were expensive, it was cheap to shoot B+W.
When colour film and processing became cheap, much less people shot B+W.
Then B+W became very expensive to process and print.
Now digital is making colour labs close one by one.
Soon colour film will be very expensive to process and print
We recycle what happened to B+W, now to colour film.
B+W is cheap and fast to process yourself at home.
Some people then scan the negative and print out on special paper on their inkjet printers with special ink.
Skip the enlarger + messy printing chemcials + dark room.
They stopped making.
Idiots.
Now only got AgfaPan 100.
When B+W were cheap and colour films were expensive, it was cheap to shoot B+W.
When colour film and processing became cheap, much less people shot B+W.
Then B+W became very expensive to process and print.
Now digital is making colour labs close one by one.
Soon colour film will be very expensive to process and print
We recycle what happened to B+W, now to colour film.
B+W is cheap and fast to process yourself at home.
Some people then scan the negative and print out on special paper on their inkjet printers with special ink.
Skip the enlarger + messy printing chemcials + dark room.
i started shooting beginning with tmax stuff previously, then discovered ilford...
apart from the delta films (delta 400), HP5 also fantastic. if processed properly, skin texture can be creamy for these films.
have been also shooting neopan for a while, finer grain than even the ilford stuff but me still uncertain about the tonality etc.....no clear winner between ilford and neopan for me yet....
for high speed stuff, preference would be in the order of neopan 1600, delta 3200, and then lastly tmax3200
the cn41 stuff....well....i have seen fantastic output in magazines but i thnik the printers locally wont be able to do that for you.....
apart from the delta films (delta 400), HP5 also fantastic. if processed properly, skin texture can be creamy for these films.
have been also shooting neopan for a while, finer grain than even the ilford stuff but me still uncertain about the tonality etc.....no clear winner between ilford and neopan for me yet....
for high speed stuff, preference would be in the order of neopan 1600, delta 3200, and then lastly tmax3200
the cn41 stuff....well....i have seen fantastic output in magazines but i thnik the printers locally wont be able to do that for you.....
hongsien said:
Was just waiting for a smart-aleck to say something like that. What make you think they didn't factor in the lighting condition of the scene they are shooting? You have to have at least a basic understanding of technical concepts to be able to control what you want to see in the resultant negatives. If you don't, you're just lucky.
C'mon use your "sixth" sense. :bsmilie:
You don't need to use zone system to have good exposed black and white pics, thousands of people didn't use zone system and still get good exposed pics......don't get too much fixed to technicalities as zone system.....the crux is knowing what and where you meter, whether you have 3D or whatever metering method, it won't help if you don't know how to meter......yes, basic understanding is enough, just don't get too drowned into technicalities.....focus on the image lah!CaeSiuM said:
If you understand Zone system yourself: most subjects (including those from famous photographers) fall into the latitude of the film and they knew that, this is why they didn't really bother about the zone system....they could 'see' the latitude of the film from experience, this what we should achieve, not go to see a scene and measure all kinds of areas...you will by then miss the action!
What is a smart-aleck?.....
Hong Sien
Then you are saying the same as me lah! That there is no real need for zone system, unless you are very particular about the result in some kind of photography, or if you really want to control the whole palette of greys and not have difficulties in printing later on....Why introduce zone system in all this?....I am talking about doc photography/street photography and that sort.....for arty pics and for difficult light conditions, it is another story, maybe thats what you were referring to?
HS
HS
If you are not doing you own D&P, there is not much control on you side, but you have ask yourself, what you want to achieve in b&w photography, will you willing spend more time in darkroom than taking pictures?theITguy said:
You are asking for what film to use, all give you different answers, you have to try it out and see. Do your own experiment, but if you have limited time to spare, try to spend the time on shooting rather than in darkroom, the bottom line is to enjoy your hobby.
In reply to hongsien and caesium
caesium-> you gotta improve your attitude abit, especially when you're just starting on bw photography for less than a year =). We can forgive that you poured in fixer instead of developer into your film tank back in May 2004, but when you start behaving like an expert and telling everybody off to use their common sense, this gets pretty sour quick. Especially to those ppl who have been doing it for a long time (4-5 years for some folks here..).
Anyway, about exposure. For fine art photography, it is recommended you use the zone system. The zone system is simply based on a meter, where the favourable choice would be the spot meter. Basically you meter an area, and set it in the zone (or tone) you would like it to be. Basically this is based on the 'toe' of the film latitude graph (or intuition if you're really good..) at any particular given development process. Besides setting the exposure for the zone system, you also have to compensate by increasing or decreasing development (N+1/N-1) if needed to get the results you want.
Basically fine art is really very technical, with more time spent in the darkroom. Alot of processes would be really needed, like compensating development, grain control, toning, etc. And you have to be very stringent and exact from film development to print. That's why most of the fine art pictures you see are all about studio, landscapes, or places of static interest.
There is simply no way such control can allow you to capture spotaniety of things like sports events...
Besides, to get the best results in fine art, it's often photographers use large format/medium format cameras and use FB paper, which is a pain to fix/ wash.
So it's really recommended to people who really are dedicated (and spend alot of money) into this sort of thing.
For the documentry, there's a different caveat. You won't have time to meter, you won't have time to even focus. Hyperfocus-ing distance is DEFINATELY essential, esp when using a rangefinder. Estimating exposure is key. You basically concentrate on getting the image you want, and you would have to set your exposure, focusing distance before entering the scene of your interest. There fore, hongsien is right to say that the old masters see the latitude of film in their eyes. They don't have time to point at a spot and go' oh, f 5.6 2/250..now for their eyes..'. They let the latitude of the film compensate for any defiencies (as well as the skill of the printer). For HCB for example, his printer kept complaining HCB film were too damn over exposed to give him a good night's sleep!!
Going back to film choice, what would you really want to do? For studio/finearts, I suggest AGFAPAN 100, TMAX 100, Delta series, or even the PLUS X pan from Kodak. For the latter choice, a conventional high speed film such as hp5+, Tri X would be a good choice, as you need the forgiveness of the film (handles +2 stops exposure and -1 stop exposure pretty well)...
It's really up to you.
caesium-> you gotta improve your attitude abit, especially when you're just starting on bw photography for less than a year =). We can forgive that you poured in fixer instead of developer into your film tank back in May 2004, but when you start behaving like an expert and telling everybody off to use their common sense, this gets pretty sour quick. Especially to those ppl who have been doing it for a long time (4-5 years for some folks here..).
Anyway, about exposure. For fine art photography, it is recommended you use the zone system. The zone system is simply based on a meter, where the favourable choice would be the spot meter. Basically you meter an area, and set it in the zone (or tone) you would like it to be. Basically this is based on the 'toe' of the film latitude graph (or intuition if you're really good..) at any particular given development process. Besides setting the exposure for the zone system, you also have to compensate by increasing or decreasing development (N+1/N-1) if needed to get the results you want.
Basically fine art is really very technical, with more time spent in the darkroom. Alot of processes would be really needed, like compensating development, grain control, toning, etc. And you have to be very stringent and exact from film development to print. That's why most of the fine art pictures you see are all about studio, landscapes, or places of static interest.
There is simply no way such control can allow you to capture spotaniety of things like sports events...
Besides, to get the best results in fine art, it's often photographers use large format/medium format cameras and use FB paper, which is a pain to fix/ wash.
So it's really recommended to people who really are dedicated (and spend alot of money) into this sort of thing.
For the documentry, there's a different caveat. You won't have time to meter, you won't have time to even focus. Hyperfocus-ing distance is DEFINATELY essential, esp when using a rangefinder. Estimating exposure is key. You basically concentrate on getting the image you want, and you would have to set your exposure, focusing distance before entering the scene of your interest. There fore, hongsien is right to say that the old masters see the latitude of film in their eyes. They don't have time to point at a spot and go' oh, f 5.6 2/250..now for their eyes..'. They let the latitude of the film compensate for any defiencies (as well as the skill of the printer). For HCB for example, his printer kept complaining HCB film were too damn over exposed to give him a good night's sleep!!
Going back to film choice, what would you really want to do? For studio/finearts, I suggest AGFAPAN 100, TMAX 100, Delta series, or even the PLUS X pan from Kodak. For the latter choice, a conventional high speed film such as hp5+, Tri X would be a good choice, as you need the forgiveness of the film (handles +2 stops exposure and -1 stop exposure pretty well)...
It's really up to you.
.
Well said.Wisp said:
To caesium, I perfer: f8, be there.
Thanks Wisp....at least someone who understands what I wanted to say......he!he!....it's ok, we learn from everyone........sorry for going OT here....question was which which film:
You need to use them all in order to find out what you like, no choice. Also, different films developed in different developers, or developed differently will give you different results....how more different can it be?
I personally like the sharp grain of Tri-X/HP-5 (visible from 35mm film, less in bigger formats due to other reasons) and I guess other films have it too, but I can't be bothered to test them all. Tri-X is what I am looking for so why should I look for others, unless Kodak really stops production of their B&W film....
Its better to test a few out, choose one or two and stick to it, learn the characteristics of the film. It all depends on what you photograph too, some pics looks nice with the grain, some don't.....some pics need great latitude, others won't, all depends on what you want in the final printout, what you want to show on it.
HS
You need to use them all in order to find out what you like, no choice. Also, different films developed in different developers, or developed differently will give you different results....how more different can it be?
I personally like the sharp grain of Tri-X/HP-5 (visible from 35mm film, less in bigger formats due to other reasons) and I guess other films have it too, but I can't be bothered to test them all. Tri-X is what I am looking for so why should I look for others, unless Kodak really stops production of their B&W film....
Its better to test a few out, choose one or two and stick to it, learn the characteristics of the film. It all depends on what you photograph too, some pics looks nice with the grain, some don't.....some pics need great latitude, others won't, all depends on what you want in the final printout, what you want to show on it.
HS
Wisp said:
*Ahem* Ohh so you're telling me people who have been it longer have louder voice eh? Who are you to tell me to improve my attitude when you reek of it? :bsmilie:
And no I don't claim to be an expert neither am I. The phrase "use your common sense" wasn't used in a sarcastic manner but rather factual.
While I have been reading and thinking, did not want to intervent to much in the arguements as I enjoyed all point of views (taking it as a learning lesson from discussions). Being educated is a joy to me
catchlights:
I enjoy shooting and exploring photography. The main thing is to see the results I want to see, which I have not found out yet for my personal preference. Also when I am financially more well off I would go into darkroom printing, now taking a step at a time to see if I am into B&W.
wisp:
Thanks for the information, I will take it as an advice to continue my path in B&W. Now trying hard to develop my style with B&W while my colour style has emerged a bit after a few months experimenting.
hongsien:
Again thanks for the advice and experience sharing.
CaeSiuM:
OT not a problem if we all can learn a bit more here and there.
Sorry guys but I am not a artistic person (see my nick you know I am very technical kind) but trying to develop my personal style which I like. Unlike my 2 sisters who are more artistic (one being a photographer long before me and the other who went through an art school in designing), I really am finding it hard to find inspiration most of the time. Probably I may only get what I want after 5 or even 10 years, but I would think it is worth the time with the learning process. Just hope that film will be still there available for me instead of me buying abroad.
Christopher
catchlights:
I enjoy shooting and exploring photography. The main thing is to see the results I want to see, which I have not found out yet for my personal preference. Also when I am financially more well off I would go into darkroom printing, now taking a step at a time to see if I am into B&W.
wisp:
Thanks for the information, I will take it as an advice to continue my path in B&W. Now trying hard to develop my style with B&W while my colour style has emerged a bit after a few months experimenting.
hongsien:
Again thanks for the advice and experience sharing.
CaeSiuM:
OT not a problem if we all can learn a bit more here and there.
Sorry guys but I am not a artistic person (see my nick you know I am very technical kind) but trying to develop my personal style which I like. Unlike my 2 sisters who are more artistic (one being a photographer long before me and the other who went through an art school in designing), I really am finding it hard to find inspiration most of the time. Probably I may only get what I want after 5 or even 10 years, but I would think it is worth the time with the learning process. Just hope that film will be still there available for me instead of me buying abroad.
Christopher
Caesium, well since you want to pull out all stops just to satisfy your ego,
let me just say what I think of your frank statements.
Let's just say that I HAD decided not to mention the fact that I showed the thread to some of my uni's reps of the arts who were helping out with my uni's photo soc, and frankly, they can't seem to figure what you're talking about. In fact, they were chuckling abit at your 'I'll be candid with you' commentry.
In short one said :' All the others make some sort of sense. This one takes the cake of an oblique schizo '
As for the rest, I'll listen to some, maybe I won't, but at least they were constructive.
And to tell you the fact, I decide to let it pass. That's why in that thread I ignored all your commentry. It's just critique right? If you were a nice person I'll just let you be. But since...
Let me tell you about some aspects of your deviantarts work. You had less than satisfactory dodging in order to achieve that ethereal glow on that tree, and you busted your shadow detail on the rocks. If you want to do a sihlouette, you shouldn't lose your outline to the background . I have no idea what was so compelling about your pictures of the cats. In fact those pictures of the cat have a certain lack of form, placement and projection. Any pictures I seen so far you have blown the highlights to lose quite abit of tonality on your face. To be fair, some of your pictures are alright, some well done, but you still need work.
You do have potential to create good work, but provided you don't let your ego get in the way as in this case.
All in all, let me just end this. The reason why I said that statement is because you are apparently spouting alot of illusions about the BW and acting like the king of the hill. The zone metering is one such thing, that you have no idea what you were talking about. Well, if you were just saying your opinion, fine, then that's your idea how to go about it. But telling others who, I recently found out, have been doing B&W for well over 20 years , to use common sense, made me very adverse towards your attitude.
You don't need to seek conflict with me. You need to apologize to them.
Go read the work of Matisse. It may help abit =).
let me just say what I think of your frank statements.
Let's just say that I HAD decided not to mention the fact that I showed the thread to some of my uni's reps of the arts who were helping out with my uni's photo soc, and frankly, they can't seem to figure what you're talking about. In fact, they were chuckling abit at your 'I'll be candid with you' commentry.
In short one said :' All the others make some sort of sense. This one takes the cake of an oblique schizo '
As for the rest, I'll listen to some, maybe I won't, but at least they were constructive.
And to tell you the fact, I decide to let it pass. That's why in that thread I ignored all your commentry. It's just critique right? If you were a nice person I'll just let you be. But since...
Let me tell you about some aspects of your deviantarts work. You had less than satisfactory dodging in order to achieve that ethereal glow on that tree, and you busted your shadow detail on the rocks. If you want to do a sihlouette, you shouldn't lose your outline to the background . I have no idea what was so compelling about your pictures of the cats. In fact those pictures of the cat have a certain lack of form, placement and projection. Any pictures I seen so far you have blown the highlights to lose quite abit of tonality on your face. To be fair, some of your pictures are alright, some well done, but you still need work.
You do have potential to create good work, but provided you don't let your ego get in the way as in this case.
All in all, let me just end this. The reason why I said that statement is because you are apparently spouting alot of illusions about the BW and acting like the king of the hill. The zone metering is one such thing, that you have no idea what you were talking about. Well, if you were just saying your opinion, fine, then that's your idea how to go about it. But telling others who, I recently found out, have been doing B&W for well over 20 years , to use common sense, made me very adverse towards your attitude.
You don't need to seek conflict with me. You need to apologize to them.
Go read the work of Matisse. It may help abit =).
- Status
Similar threads
