Starting B&W, which film?

[theITguy]

Hi all gurus,

I met this guy, seen the B&W TMax, gives me the itch to play with B&W now. Was told that XP2 is very forgiving (ISO 400 film exposed at 125 also can?), while TMax is very sharp (forgiving at all?) and I can soften the picture with soft filter. I am not working now lah, so every cent counts (every shot counts also) when sent for developing and printing. I supposed XP2 can be sent to normal lab for printing too? Heard Ruby quite ex for B&W developing.... dun like to know myself paying for like $21 for 2 rolls of E100GX :sweat:

I need to know the price for 35mm roll and processing:

1. XP2
2. TMax 100
3. TMax 400


Thanks in advance
Christopher

 

[Reflection]

Hi all gurus,

I met this guy, seen the B&W TMax, gives me the itch to play with B&W now. Was told that XP2 is very forgiving (ISO 400 film exposed at 125 also can?), while TMax is very sharp (forgiving at all?) and I can soften the picture with soft filter. I am not working now lah, so every cent counts (every shot counts also) when sent for developing and printing. I supposed XP2 can be sent to normal lab for printing too? Heard Ruby quite ex for B&W developing.... dun like to know myself paying for like $21 for 2 rolls of E100GX :sweat:

I need to know the price for 35mm roll and processing:

1. XP2
2. TMax 100
3. TMax 400


Thanks in advance
Christopher

I think Cathay has got pretty good prices on film. Tmax is less grainy than Tri-X, but ISO 400 Tmax is still grainy regardless. I suggest buying a roll of each to see which you prefer.

I think TMax was $4.50 if i'm not mistaken. Don't quote me on that though. Processing is usually around $7, but you can learn to DIY very easily. Suggest going the DIY route...very fun and satisfying when you see the negative in full bloom. :lovegrin:

 

[sriram]

I've found Ilford films much better than Kodak in many respects.
(a) They are easier to process, they are not so fussy with times and temperatures. With TMax you have to be really very careful with developer dilution and processing times, otherwise it doesn't come out well. Ilford's equivalent film, Delta 100/400/3200 is far less fussy.
(b) People often recommend Tri-X. Instead, I would recommend Ilford HP5+. It is just like Tri-X, and it has an even greater tonal range, and again, it is very easy to process, you can literally throw developer at it, shake it a bit and it comes out well. Tri-X needs more careful processing.

If you are starting out with B&W I'd recommend Ilford HP5+ or FP4+. Give them a try, they are available at Ruby. As for C41 B&W, I'd skip XP2, instead, have a look at Kodak's BW400CN, it's very good.

 

[student]

I've found Ilford films much better than Kodak in many respects.
(a) They are easier to process, they are not so fussy with times and temperatures. With TMax you have to be really very careful with developer dilution and processing times, otherwise it doesn't come out well. Ilford's equivalent film, Delta 100/400/3200 is far less fussy.
(b) People often recommend Tri-X. Instead, I would recommend Ilford HP5+. It is just like Tri-X, and it has an even greater tonal range, and again, it is very easy to process, you can literally throw developer at it, shake it a bit and it comes out well. Tri-X needs more careful processing.

If you are starting out with B&W I'd recommend Ilford HP5+ or FP4+. Give them a try, they are available at Ruby. As for C41 B&W, I'd skip XP2, instead, have a look at Kodak's BW400CN, it's very good.

Christopher

You will always have different opinions on questions like this. For example: I prefer XP2 to TCN (actually I don't prefer any of these two)

I prefer Tri-X over HP5.

But I do like FP4 a lot!

Among the "T grain" (Tmax, Delta, Acros) , I hate Tmax 400. Tmax 100 is fine, but there is a peculiar static to the film. I prefer Fuji Acros.

So there you are, more confusion!

 

[Reflection]

Christopher

You will always have different opinions on questions like this. For example: I prefer XP2 to TCN (actually I don't prefer any of these two)

I prefer Tri-X over HP5.

But I do like FP4 a lot!

Among the "T grain" (Tmax, Delta, Acros) , I hate Tmax 400. Tmax 100 is fine, but there is a peculiar static to the film. I prefer Fuji Acros.

So there you are, more confusion!

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

As with all areas of photography, everything is a variable.

 

[theITguy]

Christopher

You will always have different opinions on questions like this. For example: I prefer XP2 to TCN (actually I don't prefer any of these two)

I prefer Tri-X over HP5.

But I do like FP4 a lot!

Among the "T grain" (Tmax, Delta, Acros) , I hate Tmax 400. Tmax 100 is fine, but there is a peculiar static to the film. I prefer Fuji Acros.

So there you are, more confusion!

Thats how I make my decision based on such opinions also hehe. Anyway, see if I got any decent output to show at the Circles of Light gathering lah. Any picture will do right? :sweat: Didn't dare to start B&W until I saw 2 guys' results (go guess who lah :devil: )

Thanks for the input
Christopher

 

[student]

Thats how I make my decision based on such opinions also hehe. Anyway, see if I got any decent output to show at the Circles of Light gathering lah. Any picture will do right? :sweat: Didn't dare to start B&W until I saw 2 guys' results (go guess who lah :devil: )

Thanks for the input
Christopher

Wah! You devil, ah?

How can devil be frightened of anything! :bsmilie:

 

[binbeto]

I have just started B&W too. So far only tried Kodak CN400BW. Quite happy with them but I still see myself more of a "colour" person.

Here's 2 thread I posted using them.

Pray
Need your eyes to help me see if it's over sharpened as mentioned. I personally think not but would like to hear more.


Thaipusam

I am just too lazy to learn DIY developing so pick up a C41 instead.

 

[CaeSiuM]

Use your gut feel, buy a roll of each film you think you'll like and try them out. Most people are always going "Tri-X Tri-X Tri-X" like some kind of hypnotic message.

I tried out most popular emulsions and found out that Neopan 400 is the one I really like best. Dare to experiment.

 

[theITguy]

hehe, gotten a roll of XP2@$5 from Ruby. Next get a red/orange filter

 

[pipefish]

I like Neopan too.

For Tri-X, I have to develop with very dilute rodinal before I can live with the grain, esp the 135 format. However, Tri-X is so forgiving that I can rely on guesstimate exposure techniques (unlike Tmax 100 and Delta, which were very unforgiving of my errors in exposure).

And contrary to what others think, I think Tmax 400 is a pretty nice film. When I first printed it, my coursemates thought it was a ISO 100 film.

Use your gut feel, buy a roll of each film you think you'll like and try them out. Most people are always going "Tri-X Tri-X Tri-X" like some kind of hypnotic message.

I tried out most popular emulsions and found out that Neopan 400 is the one I really like best. Dare to experiment.

 

[kex]

i'm shooting Tmax400 and souped with HC110,

like the speed and look of the print,grain is quite good for a 400 film,alot nicer than Tri X..

 

[ellery]

if its economical shooting then the only way is to do 100% DIY.

Basic setup cost for process at home can be held to about $60 for a tank that will d0 2 rolls of 135mm , a changing bag, a thermometer, a measuring cylinder. The measuring pitcher you can make do with some thing from NTUC or Cold Store or even Toyogo.

For printing you need some 8x10 or 9x 12 paper. You need to buy film and paper developer, and fixer. Stop batch you can use kitchen vinegar - roughly a half a coffee cup to a 2 litres is fine. Some contianer to store the fixer - it can be reused. A funnel unless your hands a real stready.

Join Safra - geting access to the dark room could be a problem if you have never printed before. If you can - you may not need to buy the tank and changing bag - you can use Safra's but the cost is time and travel expenses. You may still need to buy film developer, they provide fixer I think. For printing Safra used to provide chemcials - all you need is exposed film and paper.

Sending out for black and white is costly and most time dissappointing. Even Desmond ( who some people call a GURU) may not do it the way you want it done.

XP2/TNC exposes ok but prints from this have so high variation in colors tones that its frustrating - not many places can do consistant black and true whites. The softness of the print is also an issue.

If actual cost is an issue the digital route is probably cheaper since once the captial cost as sunk - it cost only hard disk or cd space and time. I assume that the cost of travel and incidentials to shooting are expense that will occur any way.

film there is no magic brand - any one is ok for use. what to use depends on what you like and what you are doing and how you are doing it. Its a wide spectrum of choices there is no one true way.

 

[singscott]

i'm shooting Tmax400 and souped with HC110,

like the speed and look of the print,grain is quite good for a 400 film,alot nicer than Tri X..

Same here

 

[hedgehog]

Safra still provide all chemicals for processing and printing. Only thing is Safra provides only one type of developer (microdol). If you are new at this, you might want to take the monochrome course to learn. The things about B&W is that you probably want to control the whole process of taking the photo, processing it, and printing it to your liking. Unless you can find some expert printer to print to your spec, its much better to do everything yourself, especially the printing of B&W photo. Its your photo, so its your interpretation of how to print the photo.

if its economical shooting then the only way is to do 100% DIY.

Basic setup cost for process at home can be held to about $60 for a tank that will d0 2 rolls of 135mm , a changing bag, a thermometer, a measuring cylinder. The measuring pitcher you can make do with some thing from NTUC or Cold Store or even Toyogo.

For printing you need some 8x10 or 9x 12 paper. You need to buy film and paper developer, and fixer. Stop batch you can use kitchen vinegar - roughly a half a coffee cup to a 2 litres is fine. Some contianer to store the fixer - it can be reused. A funnel unless your hands a real stready.

Join Safra - geting access to the dark room could be a problem if you have never printed before. If you can - you may not need to buy the tank and changing bag - you can use Safra's but the cost is time and travel expenses. You may still need to buy film developer, they provide fixer I think. For printing Safra used to provide chemcials - all you need is exposed film and paper.

Sending out for black and white is costly and most time dissappointing. Even Desmond ( who some people call a GURU) may not do it the way you want it done.

XP2/TNC exposes ok but prints from this have so high variation in colors tones that its frustrating - not many places can do consistant black and true whites. The softness of the print is also an issue.

If actual cost is an issue the digital route is probably cheaper since once the captial cost as sunk - it cost only hard disk or cd space and time. I assume that the cost of travel and incidentials to shooting are expense that will occur any way.

film there is no magic brand - any one is ok for use. what to use depends on what you like and what you are doing and how you are doing it. Its a wide spectrum of choices there is no one true way.

 

[theITguy]

Wah, got my XP2 developed + printed.


My neg most seems underexposed, print come out not real black and white, hehe I power right? The first 19 shot @ ISO320 while the rest shot @ ISO 400. Next going to try TMax 400@200 (overexpose by 1 stop ok for TMax?)


Christopher

 

[sriram]

XP2 is not 400. If you expose it at 200, then the negative density is good enough. As with all C41 film, the developing time/temp is constant.

However when you are doing real B&W film like TMax etc, everything depends on the developer, temperature, agitation and dilution. You can shoot TMax 400 anywhere between 100 and 1000 and develop it with the right ingredients and get good results.

Find out what the lab is doing and use the appropriate ISO. I used to shoot my Delta 400 right at 400, since it was a true 400 speed film when souped in ID-11 1:1. In fact Delta 400 is pretty amazing at 1600 souped in HC-110 dilution-A, I've got a 12x16" print from that.

 

[CaeSiuM]

Wah, got my XP2 developed + printed.


My neg most seems underexposed, print come out not real black and white, hehe I power right? The first 19 shot @ ISO320 while the rest shot @ ISO 400. Next going to try TMax 400@200 (overexpose by 1 stop ok for TMax?)


Christopher

In my opinion, 3D/Matrix/Evaluative metering gives wildly inaccurate result for B&W photography. For those who are serious in B&W photography, the usage of the spot-meter coupled with the understanding of zone system usage is indeed a necessart evil.

 

[theITguy]

XP2 is not 400. If you expose it at 200, then the negative density is good enough. As with all C41 film, the developing time/temp is constant.

However when you are doing real B&W film like TMax etc, everything depends on the developer, temperature, agitation and dilution. You can shoot TMax 400 anywhere between 100 and 1000 and develop it with the right ingredients and get good results.

Find out what the lab is doing and use the appropriate ISO. I used to shoot my Delta 400 right at 400, since it was a true 400 speed film when souped in ID-11 1:1. In fact Delta 400 is pretty amazing at 1600 souped in HC-110 dilution-A, I've got a 12x16" print from that.

OIC, no wonder I was told my shots mostly underexposed.... haiz.... Anyone knows if lab at Stanley/Ruby helps you do processing for ex TMax 400 shot at ISO 1000??


Christopher

 

[locksley]

Bro,

Try get the book by Ansel Adams 'The Negative'
Very detail and well explained book for B/w

I just finished first 3 pages

very keen to read more on the zone system in book.
is about the metering for B/W

correct me if i'm wrong